Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prison Officers

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he proposes, following the implementation of all the recommendations of the Mountbatten Report cm Prisons, to make the conditions of prison officers more attractive.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The conditions of service of prison officers are kept under continuous review to ensure that they are adequate to attract sufficient men and women of good quality.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the known over-crowding of prisons and the understaffing at present, which was revealed at the time of the Mountbatten Report, will not the Home Secretary look again at this most urgent matter?

Mr. Callaghan: There have been a number of new allowances introduced in order to improve the conditions of service, and substantial agreements have been reached on the introduction of new rinks and on promotion procedure. All these things directly arise out of Mountbatten, and I think that we must leave it to the normal negotiating machinery to propose any further changes which are thought appropriate.

Mr. Whitaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his present office, and I wish him every success for the future.
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of the public and the prison service that prison officers should as far as possible develop from being mere turnkeys into social rehabilitative workers? Will he do all he can for the training and pay of the service to increase its capacity for social work?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; there is a strong case for doing what my hon. Friend suggests, and I believe that this is the approach of the Prison Officers' Association, too.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side, too, welcome him to his new position and that he can count on us to support him in his war against crime? Has he had a chance to study the complaints in the prison officers' magazine about the delay in implementing the Mountbatten Report and the contrast which they draw between the great gimmickry of floodlight perimeter walls and so on and the reluctance of the Government to implement things for the benefit of those who are employed to perform this indispensable service?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, though I shall walk with circumspection as I am never sure whether he is likely to proffer me a bunch of roses or a shillelagh.
I have not seen what is said in the Prison Officers' Association magazine, but I have a rather imposing list of improvements which have been effected since the Mountbatten recommendations were made, some of which I outlined in reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker).

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has, now that the Criminal Justice Act has abolished corporal punishment for offences in prison to protect and compensate prison officers injured by prisoners.

Mr. Callaghan: Arrangements have been made to identify prisoners who are a potential danger to prison officers so


that they may be especially allocated and be afforded remedial treatment. A claim from the Prison Officers' Association for improved compensation in respect of prison officers killed or injured as a result of violence by an inmate is being considered. As the Association recognises this claim raises complex issues.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Home Secretary have a hard look at this, as it is pretty tough going in prisons now that the threat of corporal punishment has been removed? Will he see that prison officers are really protected or, if not, compensated properly and adequatly?

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the nature of the prison population and the offences of which some prisoners are convicted, there is always a risk of violence against the staff. It is certainly our duty to ensure that that risk is minimised as much as possible. As regards compensation, if anyone should be injured, I shall give the most serious consideration to it.

Prostitution

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the large number of prostitutes breaking the law in the area of Bedford Hill, Balham; and what reply he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): My right hon. Friend has not had representations on this subject.

Dr. Kerr: Will my hon. and learned Friend inform his right hon. Friend that I have had a number of representations on this topic, including, may I say, from my neighbour and constituent my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who, I understand, has suffered from the situation which prevails there? Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the nuisance which arises from this kind of situation is due not to the existence of prostitutes but to the kerb crawling of the men who come seeking their prey in this area, and will he bear in mind the necessity for a fresh look at legislation to protect women in Bedford Hill and similar areas who are subject to the most appalling and uncivil behaviour on the part of kerb-crawling men?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many Questions on the Order Paper, and supplementary questions should be brief.

Mr. Taverne: I note with interest that my hon. Friend has had approaches made to him on this subject. The only approach to us so far has been from him. We understand that the police have had only oral representations made to them, but I shall certainly take note of what he said.

Sir. T. Brinton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not this Question more properly have been put to the Solicitor-General?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

North Vietnamese (Visas)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests have been received from the citizens of North Vietnam for visas to enter the United Kingdom during 1967; and what answers have been given.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): Four. Three were refused, and one was granted. Apart from these applications, there has been a considerable number of inquiries from people in this country about the grant of visas to Vietnamese.

Dr. Kerr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give an assurance that future inquiries or requests for visas will be dealt with on the basis that everybody is welcome to this country unless it can be shown clearly that he or she represents a danger to us?

Mr. Ennals: I can give an assurance that applications for visas by Vietnamese will be considered on their merits in the light of the relevant circumstances. There will certainly not be a policy of automatic refusal.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In what respect is North Vietnam regarded as a separate country?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Aircraft Passengers (Immigration Control)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Boeing 747 aircraft which


will soon be coming into service will be capable of carrying 500 passengers; and what preparations the immigration authorities are making to be able to handle this number of passengers expeditiously.

Mr. Ennals: My officers are considering, in consultation with the airport authorities and others concerned, how best to apply an effective immigration control without unduly delaying passengers on these aircraft.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that the speed at which visitors pass through the immigration procedures at our major airports is already giving grounds for concern? If we are to make the most of our tourist potential, especially after devaluation, will he give the problem a very high priority?

Mr. Ennals: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The average time is about 43 seconds per overseas visitor arriving in this country, and it is going down. We are most concerned to ensure that when the Boeing 747 comes into use in 1970 full provisions will be made to see that the traffic is dealt with rapidly.

Mr. Buck: Does the Minister agree that there is also the problem of people who come here to live? At present over 1,000 a year must be sent back, which is very inhumane. Will he consider introducing a certificate system so that people must have certificates before coming here to live?

Mr. Ennals: That is quite a different question.

Crime (Metropolitan Police Area)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the incidence and detection of crime in the Metropolitan Police area since 1st January last.

Mr. Callaghan: During the first nine months of 1967, indictable offences known to the Metropolitan police showed a reduction of 4·2 per cent, over the corresponding period of 1966. Twenty-four per cent. of such crimes were cleared up compared with 22 per cent, for the same period last year.

Mr. Roebuck: That is a most satisfactory statement. Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Commissioner and all ranks the thanks of law-abiding citizens for their hard work in this respect? Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent this improved performance is due to the use of technological aids?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he says. I shall see that his observations are conveyed to the police, whose morale I find to be extremely high at present. To some extent, as far as I can ascertain, this is because of the factor to which my hon. Friend refers—the introduction of modern methods of policing and new equipment, together with the placing of more responsibility on individual officers and the response of the public. All those factors seem to have given the police a substantial improvement in their approach to the problem of preventing and solving crime.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As the Metropolitan police are so under-staffed at present, will the right hon. Gentleman see if a new initiative can be taken to release some of the police from their clerical and administrative jobs and their road work, giving them a better chance to prevent and detect crime?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that that is what a great many of the police would like to do. We should certainly keep the administrative tasks to a minimum. The matter is constantly under review in the organisation and methods division of the police.

Mr. Hogg: Could the right hon. Gentleman break down these admittedly satisfactory figures to show what relation the proportion of crimes associated with violence—robbery with violence, assault with attempt to rob and possession of firearms—bears to the total?

Mr. Callaghan: In the first nine months of the year, as compared with the first nine months of last year, the figures have fallen as follows: housebreaking is down by 14 per cent.; shop and warehouse breaking by 17 per cent.; theft of motor cars by 15·6 per cent.; unauthorised taking and driving away of motor vehicles by 22·5 per cent. Robberies and assault show the least decline. Robberies and assault with intent to rob are down by 2·4 per cent.

Police (Unit-Beat System)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a progress report about the unit-beat system, and state when it is to be introduced in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

Mr. Callaghan: By 30th September, 1967, the system had been introduced in police areas in which some 16 per cent, of the population of England and Wales live. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis plans to introduce the system in the Pinner area, part of which lies within the constituency of my hon. Friend, early in 1968. The remainder of his constituency is covered by the Edgware sub-division, where the system will begin to operate at some time before the end of March, 1969.

Mr. Roebuck: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. Will he take note that in my constituency we have a particular problem because of our proximity to the M1? Will he ensure that the local police force has every help in discouraging thieves from entering my constituency and decamping along the Ml with the hard-earned possessions of my constituents?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall see what comments the Commissioner has to make on that.

Mr. Grant: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this excellent system is apparently to be introduced solely in the constituency of Harrow, East? Does not Harrow, Central have a look in on this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I should not like to make any comments on where the criminals are to be found. [Laughter.] The percentage of population to be covered by the unit-beat system is going up very fast, and by next March, which is only three or four months away, 63 per cent, of the population of England and Wales will be covered by the new system.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency was chosen as the experimental city for this excellent system? Will he bear in mind that the results have been excellent, that the morale of the police has improved, that crime has dropped, and that rela-

tions between the public and the police have improved as a result? Will he expedite the use of the system throughout the country?

Mr. Callaghan: I am aware of what my hon. Friend has said. I must add that in addition to these triumphs in Accrington my hon. Friend was returned as its Member in March, 1966.

Second-hand Domestic Oil Heaters

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send a circular to local authorities drawing attention to their powers to prosecute sellers of defective second-hand oil heaters.

Mr. Ennals: A circular was issued to local authorities in June 1966 explaining the effect of the relevant Regulations, and I take this opportunity of reminding them of their powers.

Mrs. Butler: But does my hon. Friend realise that many defective oil heaters are on sale at second-hand shops and jumble sales and in markets precisely because their former owners found them defective? In view of the very small number of heaters sent in by local authorities since the circular went out, even though fires caused by defective oil heaters continue, could my hon. Friend find another way of encouraging local authorities to take their duties in this respect more seriously?

Mr. Ennals: If a defective oil heater is sold in a shop an offence is clearly committed. There has not been a court case concerning jumble sales. But the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has already urged that these heaters should not be sold in them. My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a serious problem. In 1966, 49 people died in England and Wales as a result of fires caused by oil heaters.

Immigration Control (Tanzanians)

Dr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special instructions have been given to immigration officers at Heathrow Airport in dealing with visitors from Tanzania and other countries with which the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations.

Mr. Ennals: None, Sir.

Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that a Tanzanian Minister complained to me of delay and discourtesy both to himself and other Tanzanians? Will he give an assurance that there is no discrimination against Tanzanians at Heathrow Airport?

Mr. Ennals: I am very disturbed to hear what my hon. Friend said. That complaint has not been brought to my attention, and I shall look into it with the greatest care. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no difference between the treatment of those who arrive from Tanzania or any other country that has broken off diplomatic relations and the citizens of any other country.

Gibraltarians (Immigration)

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now relax the application of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act affecting Gibraltarians.

Mr. Ennals: I cannot at present add anything to the reply which was given to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member on 26th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 525.]

Sir F. Bennett: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a few months ago a much more hopeful reply was made by one of his colleagues? Is he not further aware that the total population of Gibraltar is only half that of immigration from other countries which have not voted to retain close ties with this country but the very opposite? Is not the hon. Gentleman prepared to do something to help the loyal and devoted people of Gibraltar who are feeling claustrophobic and are kept interned on the Rock because of the Government's failure to protect them?

Mr. Ennals: I do not accept the last part of that supplementary question. Of course, we have sympathy with the Gibraltarians. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the referendum was concerned with the present relationship with the United Kingdom. It did not deal with immigration policy. On the possibilities regarding employment vouchers, we are giving immediate attention to whether there is any additional assistance we can give to Gibraltar.

Mr. Braine: In view of the figures given by the Minister of Labour on 30th November, which revealed that the proportion of Spaniards admitted to this country last year vastly exceeded the proportion of Gibraltarians who succeeded in getting work permits, surely there is unfair discrimination against Commonwealth citizens. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again?

Mr. Ennals: It is only partly a matter for my right hon. Friend, but we are looking at the question of labour vouchers, and, of course, there is no difficulty as far as visitors are concerned.

Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Breathalysers

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place a breathalyser in New Palace Yard for inspection by hon. Members.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a misprint in this Question? Should not the word "by" after the word "inspection" read "of"?

Mr. Taverne: A set of breath-testing devices has been placed in the Library.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is there not a good deal to be said for law-abiding citizens like hon. Members to be enabled to use a breathalyser before driving a car?

Mr. Taverne: That is not something over which the Government have any control. There would be disadvantages. For example, there might be a temptation to drink up to the limit. Again, the breathalyser might not always be accurate in such circumstances since what a person drinks on one occasion may have a different effect from what he drinks on another. It depends on what he has eaten. I understand that the firm which produces the approved devices has announced that it will place large numbers on sale to the public.

Mr. John Hall: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Hampshire


Licensed Victuallers Association considers that hon. Members should have a breathalyser test before an important vote is taken in the House?

Mr. Taverne: I have noted that suggestion among a number from licensed victuallers associations.

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the crystals in the phials of the alcotest, being yellow, do not greatly differ when changed to green, if a test is proved to be positive; and whether he will propose the use of white crystals to avoid any doubt.

Mr. Taverne: I am not aware of any difficulty in reading the immediate colour change. One of the chemicals essential to this device is yellow in colour.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, seen in sodium or phosphate light, these crystals are difficult to identify and the police have been known to look at them in the light of a motorist's headlights? How does he know what the filament is in that headlight?

Mr. Taverne: It is perfectly true that in a certain kind of sodium lighting there may be some difficulty in reading the result, and the police have been advised to use the lights of a headlamp or a torch, but there are no chemicals with a white colour which would produce the required action when subjected to alcohol.

Sir G. Nabarro: Have we not reached a stage now when the whole of this complicated matter of the specification of breathalysers ought to be remitted to the British Standards Institution so that all users of breathalysers everywhere know that the product being employed is utterly reliable and in accordance with the Institution's recommendation?

Mr. Taverne: No one has been able to find any fault with the requirements which we have stipulated and the device which we have is the same as that which has been approved elsewhere and it is proving satisfactory in support of a very good law.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that the only test in which most of us are interested is the reduction in the number of innocent pedestrians knocked down?

Is he further aware that most of us want to rebut completely this over-sensitivity on behalf of drunks?

Miss Sue Berry

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that Sue Berry of Watford can identify at least one of the police officers who told her to plead guilty of an offence of which she was subsequently acquitted, what further action he proposes to take; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Taverne: As there has been some conflict of information on the question whether Miss Berry could identify an officer alleged to have advised her to plead guilty, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has made detailed inquiries on this point. Miss Berry has stated that she remembered an officer who gave evidence against her in court as being the same officer who noted her name and address at the time of her arrest. But my information is that she did not identify this officer as one who advised her to plead guilty and that the officer concerned categorically denies that he at any time spoke to Miss Berry or her companion about their pleas. On 18th November, she and her companion informed the police that neither of them had made or wished to make any complaint against the police.

Mr. Tuck: Although the young girl in question has now compassionately stated that she does not wish to make any formal complaint, will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that he will make it clear to the police, especially the policeman in question, that this kind of thing must never happen again?

Mr. Taverne: I note that my hon. Friend pursues this when the young lady does not. Of course, the police are made aware that using pressure to persuade someone to plead guilty is improper, but in this case the young lady has not identified any particular police officer as having made such a suggestion, according to my information.

Immigrant Children (West Indies)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to ensure that immigrant


children arriving unaccompanied from the West Indies are coming to the home of a parent who is willing and able to take care of them.

Mr. Ennals: Children under 16 coming to join their parents who are Commonwealth citizens resident here have a statutory right of admission, and my right lion. Friend has no power to prevent, or to attach conditions to, their entry.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a problem here? Some plane loads of children arrive in this country in the care of hostesses and in some cases children go to mothers who have married again and have other children and other families who are not anxious or are unwilling to have them. Surely it is time the Home Office looked into this question, because it affects the welfare of children as well as the welfare services in the constituencies concerned.

Mr. Ennals: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has not put any such information before us. We are not aware of such a problem. If he has evidence from his constituency or elsewhere, we will seriously look at it.

Mr. Hogg: Has the hon. Gentleman had time to reflect upon the admitted facts which arose out of the last debate on immigration when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that a serious problem was created by the importation of boys to a single father in this country whom he desires to exploit for the purpose of avoiding a labour voucher?

Mr. Ennals: That is a different though important question. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that since that debate the matter is being looked at very seriously to see what proposals can be made.

Mr. John Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems are not limited to children coming from the West Indies?

Mr. Ennals: The point made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) related almost entirely to children from Pakistan. Children from the West Indies nearly all come in with entry certificates because of arrangements made by the carrying company.

Obscene Publications Act

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to amend the Obscene Publications Act.

Mr. Taverne: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that recent cases, including "The Last Exit to Brooklyn" case, seem to indicate that the present law is totally unsatisfactory? Will he look at this again?

Mr. Taverne: I do not think one can change the law according to one's views on how each individual case is decided. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the law was liberal in design and, on the whole, has resulted in greater freedom of publication. The design of the law is that the public, represented by a jury, should decide whether a book of a particular kind should be published, and I think that that is a satisfactory approach.

Mr. Hogg: Is the opinion of persons convicted of a criminal offence necessarily good evidence that the law ought to be changed?

Mr. Taverne: This is a subject on which a variety of opinions have been expressed by those who have read the book and by those who have not.

Mr. Whitaker: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that what is needed on the subject of the effect of obscenity is less emotion and more scientific fact? Would we not be greatly assisted by an expert independent commission such as the one Denmark has set up with beneficial results?

Mr. Taverne: The purpose of the law was to enable the public themselves to judge, through a jury, and we leave it to the public to weigh the expert evidence produced on a particular book. There is a lot of disagreement among experts about the effect of certain books on the public.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman express his gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), without whose individual action there is no doubt that this successful prosecution would never have been instituted?

Mr. Taverne: I am not going to comment on this occasion on particular decisions on particular books by particular juries.

Messrs. Handle, Foley and Chandler

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by commuting the prison sentences now being served by Messrs. Randle, Foley and Chandler for their part in demonstrations at the Greek Embassy.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in respect of Mr. Chandler, Mr. Randle and Mr. Foley.

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot recommend interference with the decisions of the courts unless significant new facts or considerations have come to light which the courts were unable to consider. In this case no such considerations have been brought to my notice and there are accordingly no grounds on which I should be justified in advising the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Mr. Rose: I recognise my right hon. Friend's difficulty, but will he bear in mind the widespread conviction that long-term imprisonment is entirely inappropriate for an offence of conscience? Will he look again at the possibility of recommending the exercise of the Prerogative? Is he aware that today the King of Greece would probably not be able to get into his own Embassy?

Mr. Callaghan: From the volume of noise I am aware that this case raises considerable emotion, but I must judge my advice on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in accordance with the well-known practice. As for the young men themselves, I see no reason why at least one of them who wishes to continue his studies should not do so while in detention, and I want to examine that sympathetically in order to ensure that he loses as little time as possible.

Mr. Winnick: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that he ought not to keep in prison people who felt so deeply about the taking of power by Greek colonels that they protested actively a few months

ago? Does he not agree that, apart from anything, else the release of these three would show the utter contempt which we in Britain have for the military riff raff who still rule Greece?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall not comment on my hon. Friend's second supplementary question which does not arise out of the Question. To have asked the first he cannot have heard what I said. If I put myself into the position of reviewing sentences passed by the courts, there would be no end to it and there would be an immediate conflict between the Executive and the courts, which might well have very undesirable consequences.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when listening to representations of the kind just made by his hon. Friends that it will be a sad day for the rule of law in international affairs if this of all countries tolerates invasion of embassies as a means of expressing political feelings?

Mr. Callaghan: I certainly do not forget that our own people in China have been subjected to very considerable molestation because of disagreeing with the regime of that country. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody should be prevented from expressing his detestation of a régime, provided that he does so in a lawful way.

Gartree Prison, Leicestershire

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to arrange to have provided proper employment for the inmates of Gartree Prison, Leicestershire.

Mr. Taverne: New and better work has already been introduced and all prisoners should soon be more satisfactorily employed.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that until recently two-thirds had nothing to do? Does not enforced idleness of this type place a big additional strain on both the staff and the prisoners and ought it not to be avoided?

Mr. Taverne: Yes. Before this prison was opened, arrangements were made with a private firm to devote all the workshops to good class light engineering.


Unfortunately, the firm was unable to provide more than a small amount, but the position has now been improved. Unsatisfactory toy painting work has been replaced and soon the prisoners are to be employed on more worthwhile work.

Lord Chamberlain (Theatrical Jurisdiction)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to abolish the theatrical jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain as recommended by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has just presented a Bill for that purpose.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the unanimity of the Joint Select Committee and the comparatively low place in the Ballot of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), not to mention the unfortunate precedent of the recent legislation on abortion, would it not be best for the Government to shoulder their responsibilities in this matter and introduce a Bill themselves?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. All that presupposes a great many hypothetical questions, none of which has yet arisen.

Probation Officers (Pay)

Mr. Bitten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advance the review date of 1st April, 1968, for the pay of principal probation officers in order to provide an early opportunity of establishing a more suitable career Structure in the probation service.

Mr. Taverne: No, Sir. The review date has been agreed by the Joint Negotiating Committee for the probation and after-care service.

Mr. Biffen: In order to mitigate the disappointment in the probation service on account of that Answer, can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is the anxiety of the Home Office at the earliest possible moment to have a pay structure fully commensurate with the responsibility now being placed on the probation service?

Mr. Taverne: That is a matter for the negotiating committee. It is that committee's responsibility and not merely ours. A separate review of supervisory posts in the service is now in progress and has already resulted in an improvement of promotion prospects.

Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. and learned Friend look favourably at any suggestion by the negotiating committee for the introduction of one or more additional grades of probation officer, as that might provide more attractive promotion prospects?

Mr. Taverne: It would be wrong to anticipate what the joint negotiating committee will recommend.

Mr. Deedes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the considerable strain which will fall on the service in the spring with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, and the crucial importance of keeping the service up to strength?

Mr. Taverne: Certainly.

White Paper on Immigration

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper on Immigration, Command Paper No. 2739.

Mr. Callaghan: In framing the legislation on immigration control including the establishment of an appeal system which I intend to introduce when Parliamentary time is available, I shall take full account of the proposals to which the hon. and learned Member refers.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman, whom I am delighted to see in his present post, recognise that there is a tremendous loophole in the fact that once an illegal immigrant has remained here for 24 hours, he can remain scot-free? Will he assure us that the legislation which he promises will stop up that loophole among others?

Mr. Callaghan: I am told that this is a matter which is being carefully considered.
Mr. Hogg: As this is a matter of considerable urgency, will the right hon.


Gentleman press upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the desirability of making Parliamentary time available at the earliest possible moment after Christmas?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I o not think that I could undertake to do that.

Horse-racing Betting Levy Board (Chairman's Salary)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer the increase in the salary of the Chairman of the Horse-racing Betting Levy Board to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Does that mean that the Government think that it is worth breaching the incomes policy by a rise of 20 per cent, in order to facilitate the noble Lord's exit from the Government?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that Lord Wigg is not here to deal with the hon. Member himself. I am sure that he would give a very good account of himself. All these questions of remuneration under the Government's prices and incomes policy are related to productivity and I have no doubt—[Laughter.]

Places of Worship (Malicious Damage)

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of arson or malicious damage have been recorded during the last three years against places of worship or assembly of racial or religious minorities; and what action is being taken to deal with groups inspiring and inducing these criminal offences.

Mr. Taverne: I regret that this information is not available. The only relevant figures which I have relate to synagogues and other Jewish communal premises in the Metropolitan Police District. Nineteen cases of arson or malicious damage were reported in 1966, and nine have been reported this year. The police are paying special attention to this difficult problem.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that police forces have been remarkably efficient in apprehend-

ing those responsible for these outrages? However, as I have in my possession an alarmingly long list of these offences, will he undertake to watch this position very closely in future?

Mr. Taverne: Yes, Sir, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute which he has rightly paid to the police for this work.

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that these dastardly attacks are only the end product? Will he relate these attacks to the renewed dissemination through the post of anti-Semitic literature?

Mr. Taverne: I agree that this is something which has to be watched. There is at least this encouraging fact to report— that the membership of the National Socialist movement seems to be declining to a very small band.

Liverpool (Welsh Assets)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the will call for reports from chief constables as to what steps have been taken to safeguard the assets in Wales of the City of Liverpool.

Mr. Callaghan: The police in Wales, together with the other authorities concerned, are taking measures to reduce the risk of further damage to these installations.

Mr. Tilney: For how long will subversive elements in Wales be allowed to damage—recently to the extent of £25,000—assets of the City of Liverpool, which has brought so many amenities to the Principality of Wales, before major action is taken by the police?

Mr. Callaghan: I can say that from personal experience there are no subversive elements in Wales. There are a few irresponsible young idiots, whose actions are deplored and repudiated by the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not ridiculous that the full cost should be borne by the City of Liverpool and not by the Government in such matters?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to address that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Civil Defence

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon what estimate of the number of survivors in the event of a major nuclear attack on this country he bases the civil defence of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ennals: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 26th October —[Vol. 751, c. 517.]

Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in this House last year that in the event of a thermonuclear exchange life on this island would be extinct within three days? Will he get together with his right hon. Friend? One of them must be right and the other wrong, and I suspect that he is wrong and is wasting public money on an entirely useless exercise.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend, when he made the statement on 4th March, 1965, did so in the context of a thermo-nuclear war in which we were supposed to be tackling the Soviet Union single-handed. He made it clear that this was a highly unlikely event, so that the comments he made are not really relevant. There would undoubtedly be very serious devastation, but there would be life on this island. Civil defence is necessary in order to prevent casualties, for the treatment of the injured and in order to provide survivors with a means of life.

Police Uniforms (Identification Numbers)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his policy to allow the police in Hertfordshire to abandon the use of identification numbers on their uniforms.

Mr. Callaghan: I have consulted the Police Advisory Board on a proposal that the display of numbers on police uniforms should be discontinued generally, and have since reflected on the opinions expressed. Those who have proposed this change have been motivated by a desire to improve the status of police officers. But it seems to me that it is in the interests both of the public, and  police themselves, that the police

should continue to wear numbers on their uniform, and I intend to advise police authorities and chief officers of police in this sense.

Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will give great satisfaction to the majority of citizens in the country, as the only safeguard that they have against possible abuse of power is the identification of the policeman?

Mr. Callaghan: I would not accept that it is the only possible safeguard that the citizen has, but it is true that the citizen feels that, as long as there is a number, there is a greater measure of protection for him. On behalf of the police I want to say that they do not desire to get rid of these numbers because of any wish to escape responsibility.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he was in a previous office he gave me exactly the opposite answer, with exactly the opposite arguments, when I suggested that perhaps Customs officials should wear numbers, too?

Mr. Callaghan: There is surely a difference between asking people who do not wear numbers to put them on, and taking them away from those who have traditionally worn them.

Beauty Preparations (Hormones)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to control the use of hormones in beauty preparations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend is awaiting the recommendations of the Poisons Board on this matter.

Mrs. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of concern about these preparations, some of which may be completely useless, and therefore misleading, and others which may have a health risk, especially for older women with hormone susceptibility? Could he get the report and act on it as quickly as possible?

Mr. Taverne: I am aware that there has been disquiet, particularly about one preparation known as "Beauty Bust", which was advertised under the title of "Bust Beauty Yours", Mr. Speaker.


There is a dispute about that particular product and we will certainly act as soon as we have the report of the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — NASSAU AGREEMENT

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Prime Minister in what conditions he will start the proposed re-negotiation of the Nassau Agreement.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the Nassau Agreement.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will specify the aspects of the Nassau Agreement which are now preventing French acceptance of Great Britain as a member of the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Before replying to these Questions, Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that, while Questions on this subject would normally be for answer by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I am prepared exceptionally to reply to them today, in view of the exchanges which took place at Question Time on 21st November, and the undertaking I then gave to the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Ridley).

The Answer is: I would refer hon. Members to the Answers given to Questions by the hon. Members for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and Banbury (Mr. Marten) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 13th November and to the exchanges in this House following my Statement of 20th June on my discussions with President de Gaulle.—[Vol. 754, c. 17; Vol. 748, c. 1418.]

Mr. Campbell: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence who, in the defence debate in this House on 27th November, gave as an important reason for the Government's inaction on this that our allies would not wish France to be the only country on this side of the Atlantic which possessed its own nuclear weapons? This was as valid in 1964 as it is now.

The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with what my right hon. Friend said. We are having, and have had for a very considerable time, discussions with our allies. One of the big problems throughout the

period has been the position of Germany and German responsibility for nuclear weapons, and the feeling on that question, going far outside of Europe.

Mr. Marten: In the light of the Government's intention to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement can the Prime Minister say whether it is the Government's intention to fit multi-nuclear warheads to our Polaris missiles and if so how does this fit in with election pledges?

The Prime Minister: We have made clear that we are not embarking on a new generation of nuclear weapons or warheads in relation to our Polaris programme.

Mr. Ridley: As the Prime Minister now agrees with the Secretary of State for Defence in that France should not be the only nuclear Power in Europe, does this mean that the pledge to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement is finally and completely buried?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly not buried. I thought that the hon. Gentleman just now quoted words different from those used by my right hon. Friend and from those of his hon. Friend. The original quotation as I understand it, from the first hon. Member, was not my right hon. Friend's view of this, but what our allies in Europe may think. We are discussing with our allies. We shall renegotiate at the appropriate time, when we have reached agreement with them.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling among many people that the Labour Party really should carry out its pledge of 1964, and get rid of the independent nuclear deterrent? Is he aware that many people can see no reason why the Polaris programme should continue at this time?

The Prime Minister: The intention of 1964 was not only to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement but to internationalise our deterrent. This remains our policy.

Mr. Maxwell: My right hon. Friend will recollect that the Nassau Agreement came into being because of the brutal cancellation, by the United States Administration, of the Skybolt arrangement. Could he not, under these circumstances, now agree to cancel our purchases


of the F111? This could save us £450 million in foreign exchange which we desperately need in order to help our balance of payments.

The Prime Minister: That is an entirely different question, and I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said in the debate on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCAST)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library the text of his broadcast on 19:h November.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the text of his television broadcast on 19th November, 1967, on the economic situation.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 28th November, Sir.

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of that, but when the Prime Minister referred in his broadcast to provocative rent increases, did this include the large increases in Scotland by new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association, for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is substantially responsible?

The Prime Minister: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has been wasting the time of the House putting down Questions to which he knows the answer. In relation to his Question, as opposed to his statement, when I referred to provocative increases I was referring to a number of increases by local authorities, not themselves directly responsible for their rents to any Minister or Secretary of State, some of which have been done in a provocative way and appear excessive and have been done very suddenly without any proper phasing. These are all now to be examined, including a number of perhaps perfectly reasonable rent increases, because we know that some are reasonable but others are not.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the higher price of imports, can the right hon. Gentleman make a firm declaration of Government policy on the position of builders who entered into firm price con-

tracts with the encouragement of the Government, and thus clear up the apparent discrepancy between the remarks of the Minister of Public Building and Works that some costs would be reimbursed and those of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that they would not?

The Prime Minister: I will go into this question with my right hon. Friend. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Mr. Grimond: When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of "provocative increases", at whom did he think the provocation was aimed? Was it the local authorities themselves? What is to be the test for raising rents at a time when all prices are bound to rise owing to devaluation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong when he says that all prices are bound to rise. Some will inevitably, as I made clear in the broadcast in question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If any hon. Member will put a further supplementary question, I will quote what I said on that occasion and perhaps rob the Opposition of the legend which they are building up. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that all prices must go up. A number are going up, and are being watched, which have nothing to do with devaluation at all. This is a problem. When the right hon. Gentleman asks to whom increases are "provocative", they are provocative particularly to those in industry whom we are asking to show the utmost restraint in wage demands.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his speech was very widely supported in the country? Would he now go further and consider whether there should perhaps be a moratorium on council house rent increases for the next six months?

The Prime Minister: That of itself is not a solution to the problem. As I said, some rents must inevitably increase, and have been increasing for some time. Many of those which have been referred were pre-devaluation. But some are reasonable, others may not be. That is why we have asked the Prices and Incomes Board to go into this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT PREVENTION

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the United States Government's policy known as "Mission Safety 70", details of which have been sent to him; and if he will institute a similar drive for accident prevention in all Government Departments and establishments.

The Prime Minister: I have read with interest the documents which my hon. Friend has sent me. I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate to institute a similar campaign in this country because Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate is already responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of our comprehensive safety legislation in Government Departments and establishments as well as in private industry and also for giving advice on accident prevention.

Mr. Watkins: But is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of industrial casualties per year in this country is nearly seven times as great as the number of military casualties per year during the Second World War? Does he not think that the Government should give a lead, which is obviously needed, to industry and commerce in this matter?

The Prime Minister: All of us are concerned about the very serious rate of industrial accidents, despite the great work of the Factory Inspectorate and of both sides of industry to reduce it. But this Mission is not the way to do it. In America the responsibility is that of the State and not of the Federal Government. Hence this project. The Americans do not have, as we do, a thorough-going national system of safety inspection.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Mr. Farr: asked the Prime Minister if he will refrain from appointing a successor to the office of Paymaster-General.

The Prune Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Farr: In view of the recognised qualifications of discretion and anonymity required of the holder of this office, would the right hon. Gentleman say what consideration he has given to filling the

vacancy with the name of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown)?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that I shall see the funny side of that question if I think about it long enough I should not have said that the necessary qualifications for this post were anonymity and discretion, remembering that the last, or almost the last, holder of the office was the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), under the Conservatives

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous holder of the post was able to do one thing which no member of the present Government has been able to do, that is, restrain public expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I saw no evidence of that in the right hon. Gentleman's time. There was a prodigious increase in public expenditure in the last two or three years of the Conservative Party's term of office, before the election, and even more commitments for increased expenditure which we had to cut off when we came into office.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has received from the Council of Engineering Institutions about co-operation on progress towards a European Technological Community; and what reply he has made.

The Prime Minister: The Council in a recent letter to me indicated its interest in the idea of a European Institute of Technology and its willingness to help in any way possible. In my reply, I welcomed its interest and support and invited it to let the Government have any views it might wish to express.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great fund of professional knowledge which could be of use to the Government in developing the idea of a European Technological Community? Would he agree that the roll-out of the Concorde this week—[An hon. Member: "Talk it out again."] Would be agree that the roll-out of the Concorde on Monday is an illustration


of what can be done in European cooperation? Would he further seek the advice of the C.E.I, on how to extend very greatly the number of projects which we are undertaking in co-operation with our friends in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I certainly recognise that engineers and technologists such as those represented in the Council will have a great deal to contribute when we get these ideas further developed. In the first instance, we should be working through the C.B.I, and other industrial organisations, but we shall make all the use we can of the help of the C.E.I.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs. Lena Jeger: asked the Prime Minister what legislation is contemplated to eliminate discrimination against women in the United Kingdom and dependent territories.

The Prime Minister: None at present, Sir, but if my hon. Friend has any specific examples of discrimination which she considers could be tackled by legislation perhaps she would let me know of them.

Mrs. Jeger: Is not the Prime Minister aware that this is Human Rights Year and that the Government are supporting die United Nations celebration of 20 years of the Declaration of Human Rights? Would it not, therefore, be fitting if we undertook the legislation necessary to enable us to sign the I.L.O. Convention on equal pay and the elimination of discrimination and certain other instruments of the United Nations to which we are not yet signatories?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the celebration of 20 years' of human rights. I shall be involved in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the achievement of political rights for women in this country. However, if my hon. Friend would kindly specify the particular point which she has in ind—whether for the United Kingdom or for the associated territories and dependent territories—I should be glad to have it examined most carefully.

Mr. Goodhew: Would not the hon. Lady's point be met by a Sex Relations
Act?

Mr. Whitaker: Surely the full cost eventually of equal pay for women is no excuse for starting its phased introduction. As a mere man, may I ask whether women have to resort to industrial action before they cease to pay this involuntary tax?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what has been said on these difficult questions by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who, as the House knows, has been having whole series of studies made of the cost and means of introducing this.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-WEST

Mr. Clegg: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for the Northwest.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

. Clegg: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable distress in the grey areas of Lancashire, including, for example, my constituency where there is an average unemployment rate of 6·5 per cent? Does he not think it time that something was done about this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the anxiety in different parts of Lancashire, and the House spent a great deal of time debating this matter yesterday. I do not think that it is necessary to have a separate Minister responsible, particularly when one considers the very high level of Lancashire representation in the Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will convene a special meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to discuss further action to end the illegal regime in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 21st November to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan).—[Vol. 754, c. 1135.]

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the fact that a compromise settlement which might leave power resting effectively with Mr. Ian


Smith and the Rhodesian Front would be totally unacceptable to most hon. Members on this side of the House, would my right hon. Friend reconsider this point, since it would be shown to be altering our strategy, and a special meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers for this purpose might make an effective change in the progress we should make?

The Prime Minister: I think that what my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary said on the issues involved here was largely acceptable to the House on Tuesday—indeed, both sides of the House—but I am not certain at this stage that a Commonwealth Conference would take matters further. At the last Commonwealth Conference we did, after all, spend a disproportionate amount of time on Rhodesia to the prejudice of other issues which ought to have been considered.

Mr. Maudling: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say on 7th December that it was agreed with Salisbury that there should be no public discussion of the particular issues involved? How does he reconcile this agreement with the Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday?

The Prime Minister: Really, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Last week hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench were pressing for a statement. They agreed to wait, to be patient; and they were very patient, considering the time since my right hon. Friend's return. But we had to make it clear to Mr. Smith that the House was anxious to know what had happened in those talks, and when Mr. Smith was giving a completely distorted account, saying there was no real difference between us, it was about time to inform the House, and to tell him we were going to do so.

Mr. Maudling: Was there or was there not an agreement with Salisbury not to discuss, them? If, as the Prime Minister said on 7th December, there was an agreement, did he break that agreement, or did he tell Mr. Smith?

The Prime Minister: No. There was an agreement not to do it without consultation. There was consultation before

the statement was made by my right hon. Friend. We informed Mr. Smith we were going to tell the House of Commons. I really think that the concern of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for an illegal régime—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to have the right to tell us whether we can make a statement in what is a legal House of Commons goes beyond anything they have done. I think we showed great restraint in not denouncing right away what Mr. Smith said instead of taking some time to consider it and then informing the House of Commons as soon as we could do so.

SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir DINGLE FOOT: TO ask the Prime Minister what request has been received by Her Majesty's Government for the export of armaments of any description from the United Kingdom to the Republic of South Africa; and what reply has been returned.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q18.
The South African Government have indicated an interest in buying certain items of mainly naval equipment. No reply has as yet been sent.
Our policy on these matters remains as I stated it to the House on 17th November, 1964.
In view of the widespread interest in this matter I will undertake that the House will be given a fuller statement next week.

Sir Dingle Foot: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and ask him for an unequivocal assurance that in no circumstances will the export of arms not already contracted for be permitted to the Republic of South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I would have hoped to have been able to make a full statement this afternoon, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is very much concerned with these matters and should have been back this morning, was prevented by weather conditions from


getting back. I think it right that these matters should be the subject of consideration when he is here, and then I will make a fuller statement in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the Prime Minister confirm that this order would be worth £100 million in foreign exchange, and that if it does not come to us it will go to the French? What sort of effect does he think this decision to refuse this order would have on the foreign exchange market at present?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to say at this stage about the possible size of any orders which might be placed, or, indeed, on who else might supply them, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the United Nations' resolution in this respect, which all the other major Powers are following.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend agree that renewed export of arms to South Africa would strike at the roots of freedom and democracy on which our entire political structure is based?

The Prime Minister: I have on past occasions explained our reasons for that statement in November, 1964, in support of and adherence to the United Nations resolution. As there is to be a fuller statement next week, I do not think that I could add anything to this statement today.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall await the Prime Minister's statement next week with interest, but will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance which he attaches to the Simonstown Agreement with South Africa?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is, of course, of importance in the defence arrangements in that part of the world, but I have never accepted the right hon. Gentleman's claim that to have signed the Simonstown Agreement committed us to any form of arms supply beyond those which were specified under the agreement —and Simonstown was some years ago.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: But does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Charter of the United Nations allows for both the export and reception of arms for external defence? What would be the good to any African if the French got orders for submarines?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter, as I have said, which the right hon. Gentleman did not take quite so seriously, of the United Nations resolution, and, as I have said, all major countries have signed that resolution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should ourselves break away from that resolution and join the very—[An HON. MEMBER: "External defence."] The resolution did not make a point about external defence. The right hon. Gentleman was quoting the Charter, not the terms of the United Nations Security Council's resolution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should join the very, very small group of nations which are in breach of that Security Council resolution.

Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that any reconsideration of this arms embargo to South Africa involves the moral credibility of the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is a difference between a Government who carry out the terms of the United Nations resolution and the previous Conservative Government who, of course, broke the terms of that resolution, but I have no more to say than what I have already said, that our policy on these matters remains as stated on 17th November, 1964.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the Prime Minister agree that no United Nations resolution has a right to impose unlimited unemployment on our own people? When he is considering this very difficult, delicate problem will he remember the position of the men employed in making these types of goods?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but I do not think that with these items involved there is any question of serious unemployment being caused, particularly now, in view of the very large number of civil orders which are available to our shipyards and the very big improvement in shipbuilding orders over the past two or three months.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has received any request from the South African Govern-men for arms, and, if so, have they indicated for what purpose they require


them? Are they apprehensive of external aggression? Moreover, in spite of the fact that the Government may be confronted by very great difficulties, is it not extremely important that we should have in this country a Government who do stand by their principles?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and we have; and, to be fair, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in these matters stood by their principles, too, such as they were.
On the early part of my right hon. Friend's question, I cannot go beyond what I have already said, namely, that the South African Government have indicated an interest in buying certain items of—mainly—naval equipment; not exclusively but mainly naval equipment.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the Government's policy on this matter has been perfectly plain and unequivocal in the past, why do we have to wait till next week for a policy statement? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman simply get up and say the Government have no intention of changing their policy?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have said. There will be a fuller statement next week. The right hon. Gentleman will then be able to make the most of that statement. I hope, and I am sure, that he will enjoy the statement when he gets it.

Mr. Murray: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a statement next week will be superfluous? Could he not give us the answer today, and should it not be "No"?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that I shall be making a full statement next week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the Cabinet is agreed on the statement, and so that the House should be able to judge it, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm as a pure matter of fact that, since the ban was imposed by his Government on the provision of ships and naval equipment to South Africa, South Africa is not being deprived of a single ship, and that the only deprivation has been that this country has lost the orders?

The Prime Minister: We have carried out the United Nations resolution in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

As far as I understand, the South Africans were not at that time in the market for very many more ships. A new situation has arisen. I say that subject to correction, and I will make sure that it is stated correctly next week. We cut off certain of the Buccaneers, as is known, after fulfilling the original order. What has now arisen is a new situation in which they are thinking of more arms required for several years ahead.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not the quintessence of hypocrisy and wrong thinking to be happy to have South Africa as our third largest customer, taking £260 million worth of goods a year, and yet to refuse to sell her naval equipment which can have nothing to do with apartheid when, if a similar inquiry were made by Portugal or Russia, it would be hailed as an export break-through?

The Prime Minister: Despite the warnings that we had that the announcement of 1964 would cut off our civil trade, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that our exports to South Africa have increased since 1964. But, on the latter part of his Question, the United Nations has a resolution on this matter which we support. There is no resolution relating to the supply of arms to the Soviet Union, except for the Comecon regulations.
With regard to Portugal, it has long been the position of Her Majesty's Government that we do not supply arms to that country for use in her dependent territories.

Mr. Woodnutt: In view of the fact that the submarines which we refused to build for South Africa are now being built by the French, would the Prime Minister not agree that, if we turn down this order, it will be supplied by the French as well?

The Prime Minister: There is a lot of speculation about what would happen if we did not fulfil these orders. I am sorry that I am not in a position today to make the fuller statement that I shall be making next week. I think that it would be wrong to give a definitive answer to this today, as I had hoped to do, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, who has the responsibility for dealing with South Africa. But I have promised the House that I will make a fuller statement next week. I hope then to be able


to answer more of the supplementary questions.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: When the Foreign Secretary returns, will my right hon. Friend make clear to him the sense of the questioning today, making it particularly clear that, to find any support for a change in this policy and a resumption of this trade, he would have to cross to the other side of the House?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is perfectly capable of seeing and reading in HANSARD everything said at Question Time when he gets back, when travelling conditions permit. I should be surprised to feel that my right hon. Friend needed to read a single word of it to know the strong feeling on this side or" the House on the question.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Malcolm MacMillan.

GREECE (BRITISH NATIONALS)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the position of British nationals in Greece, arising from the rejection by the Head of State of the military Government in Athens.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to answer this Question.
Our Embassy in Athens has received no reports of British lives or property being endangered by the events of the last 24 hours.

Mr. MacMillan: Now that the Greek King, as Head of State, has both rejected and dismissed the junta as enemies of the Greek democracy and people, will Her Majesty's Government consider withdrawing recognition of the Fascist junta in Athens, which is acting in savage defiance of every concept and principle of democracy and has become a menace and weakness within our N.A.T.O. Alliance?

The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary returns, obviously one of the first things which we shall have to discuss is the position arising from the fact that our recognition of the Greek Government no longer appears to be valid because the Head of State to whom our Ambassador is accredited is no longer in Greece. Obviously, the whole question comes up for reconsideration because of that fact.

Mr. A. Royle: In view of the possibility of British subjects being in the King's entourage, if the King applies for political asylum in this country, will Her Majesty's Government give very careful consideration to his request?

The Prime Minister: At this stage, that is a hypothetical question. Certainly, if such a proposal were made we would give careful consideration to it.

Mr. Orme: Following on my right hon. Friend's previous Answer about revising our recognition of the régime, would he give serious consideration to this because, in Greece, Britain is held in very high esteem by the Greek people? Many people there are suffering torture at the moment. We feel that stronger action by the British Government is needed.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is the traditional practice of Her Majesty's Government, and always has been, to base recognition not on approval of a Government but on whether they have control of the country concerned, by whatever means. So the question of recognition is quite different from that of, for example, diplomatic relations. It is another question again whether or not we approve of the barbarous methods in use in Greece today.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Without prejudging what is still obviously an uncertain situation, will the Prime Minister agree that the Greek King has shown considerable courage and pluck? Will he ask those of his hon. Friends who insulted and abused the Greek King some months ago to withdraw their remarks?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the issues very much in the mind of the Government, because it is clear that the Greek King, during all this period, was going through a very difficult situation,


and had a lot of things forced on him which were obviously totally intolerable and unacceptable to him. Certainly, the House would pay tribute to his courage in this situation and to the determination which he expressed, and which now seems for the time being incapable of achievement, of getting Greece back to conditions of constitutional government, legality and democracy.

Mr. Gardner: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the effect of the situation in Greece upon Cyprus, particularly in relation to the Greek and Turkish troops in Cyprus and the prospective withdrawal of them?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There does not seem to be any connection between this and the withdrawal of troops from Cyprus. Agreement had been reached on that before these events took place, and there is no reason to suppose that that will have any effect on the situation in Greece.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath. Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions until 7 p.m.
Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill, of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill, of the London Cab Bill and of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill.
Lords Amendments to the Coal Industry Bill.
TUESDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Transport Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 20TH DECEMBER—Supply [6th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Middle East, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY, 21ST DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., that Questions be taken until 12 noon, and that the House adjourn at 5 p.m. until Monday, 22nd January, 1968.

Mr. Heath: I would like to ask the Leader of the House three questions.
The right hon. Gentleman has now apparently decided to allow only one day for the Second Reading Debate on the Transport Bill. This is a Bill which he must know comprises 300 pages. It is really seven Bills in one and it is as irrelevant to our present situation as it is long and thoroughly objectionable. If he is determined to allow only one day for Second Reading, can we at least have a suspension to give a more reasonable time, and will the Leader of the House undertake not to put down the Adjournment Motion for the Recess on that day?
Secondly, as many hon. Members will no doubt wish to take part in the debate on the Middle East, may we also have a suspension that night?
Thirdly, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be making a statement about further economic measures before the Houses rises?

Mr. Crossman: I agree that the Transport Bill is an extremely important Measure, and I am prepared to consider a suspension to an hour convenient to the House to be agreed through the usual channels.
It would also be highly reasonable to have a suspension on the day for the debate on the Middle East. Again, I would like to discuss the exact time through the usual channels.
I can say that we are not expecting a statement from the Chancellor on further economic measures before the Recess.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend not think it is inappropriate that we should not have a debate on South-East Asia, particularly on Vietnam, before the Christmas Recess? A number of hon. Members on this side of the House have been pressing for a day at least. I and many of my colleagues thought that we would have it before the Recess.

Mr. Crossman: This is a matter which we have had to discuss. Unless we were


to postpone going into recess till Friday, which I think all hon. Members would regret, I had to choose before the Recess between the Middle East and the Far East. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be a debate soon after our return. A day will be devoted to the subject in which she is interested.

Mrs. Ewing: May I call the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 66?

[That this House resolves to increase farther the retirement pension rate forthwith in Scotland and Wales in view of the lower average incomes earned in Scotland and Wales as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, the higher prices in Scotland and Wales paid for food and fuel, the fact that despite the recent increase in the retirement pension of 10s. the purchasing power of retirement pensions is less than it was two years ago, and further financial hardships the devaluation of the £ sterling will inflict in Scotland and Wales of increased prices.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate that matter?

Mr. Grossman: Having looked at this Motion more carefully. I would say to the hon. Lady that, if implemented, it would produce a sense of discrimination and apartheid which might create some nationalism south of the Border.

Mrs. Ewing: That would be something new

Mr. Steele: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Transport Bill is probably the largest piece of legislation that we are likely to have this Session? In view of its importance, one or even two hours' suspension is not sufficient. We ought to have a two-day debate on the Bill.

Mr. Crossman: I am very much aware of this problem. We had the choice between getting in the debate on the Middle East, which has been wanted very much by the House, and giving a second day to the Transport Bill. On balance, though it was a difficult choice, I thought that suspension for further time for the Transport Bill on one day was preferable to losing the debate on foreign affairs before the Recess.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some news about the Gaming Bill, which I understand was ready before

the change in the office of Home Secretary? Can we not expect it reasonably soon?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. The Gaming Bill will be published before we go into recess for Christmas. I hope to have the Second Reading debate in the first week of our return.

Mr. Pavitt: In the light of the number of takeovers in my constituency, in particular, the fact that a British company is to be taken over by Triplex, and we now have a monopoly, may we have a debate on the Monopolies Commission very shortly?

Mr. Crossman: I can see that there are potent constituency reasons for the debate, but I must consider the general interest of the House. I can see no chance of a debate in the coming week.

Mr. Hastings: In view of the recent disappointing statement by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, when will we have a debate on Rhodesia?

Mr. Crossman: I do not accept that the statement was unsatisfactory. It was disappointing in one sense, but I can see no reason why we should debate it at length before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend said that on Monday we will be discussing the Lords Amendments to the Coal Industry Bill. Is he satisfied that the House will have sufficient time to debate those Amendments?

Mr. Crossman: Looking at the time they are coming on, there is an almost unlimited period of possibilities.

Lord Balniel: Will there be a statement before the Christmas Recess about how the Government will honour the Prime Minister's pledge to protect the most vulnerable section of the community from the impact of devaluation?

Mr. Crossman: I would not expect the Chancellor or any of my colleagues to be making a statement on that subject before the Recess.

Mr. Murray: As the Prime Minister has not given a clear undertaking about arms to South Africa, may I ask the Leader of the House whether a statement on arms to South Africa will be made


early next week, so that, if necessary, Standing Order No. 9 might be invoked to have a debate on this subject?

Mr. Crossman: The Standing Order will be invoked and decided on its merits. The statement will be made early next week.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to reflect on the representations made to him every Thursday over the last few weeks that there should be a debate on the Report on the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Can he promise such a debate early after Christmas?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot promise, but this is one of the debates which has considerable priority.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Prime Minister will not go to the United States of America without giving the House an opportunity first of debating its views about Vietnam and possibly changing the Government's mind about it?

Mr. Crossman: In regard to the business for next week, the assurance is absolute.

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman stated that there was to be no statement on further economic measures before the Recess. Does he realise how dangerous it is for Ministers to go round the country saying that further drastic measures would have to be taken without saying anything about what these measures are?

Mr. Crossman: As always, I will, with courtesy, communicate to my right hon. colleague the views of the right hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 83, which calls attention to the urgent need for the Government to take positive action in the prices field both in the public and private sector?

[That this House, recognising that if restraint in the growth of personal incomes is to be accepted the effects of devaluation must be fairly shared, urges that the Government takes powers to forbid price increases in both the public

and the private sector unless the proposed increases are submitted to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination and report.]

Will he give time on Thursday, even by extending the length of that day's sitting, so that this urgent topic may be debated and a clear indication given to the Government of the wish of the House?

Mr. Crossman: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. I said that on Thursday Questions will be taken and that the House will adjourn with the usual Adjournment debates and the usual opportunities for hon. Members to raise what subjects they wish.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the Leader of the House aware of Motion No. 76, about the release of British ships in the Bitter Lakes?

[That this House notes with dismay the total failure of Her Majesty's Government to effect the release of British ships detained illegally in the Suez Canal; considers that acceptance of this unwarranted seizure of British property will give rise to the belief that the United Kingdom will never again under any circumstances act in defence of legitimate British interests; and calls on the Government to adopt more effective methods of achieving their immediate release.]

Will the Government take an early opportunity—preferably before the debate on the Middle East next week—of publishing a clear statement on what is happening about these ships, what action has been taken, and with what results?

Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that the resumption of diplomatic relations created an opportunity for action in relation to these ships. If action does justify a statement next week, no doubt my hon. Friend will make it.

Mr. Powell: Will the Leader of the House impress on his right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the importance of a statement before the House rises on the question of forces allowances?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the importance attached to that subject. I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend to see whether it is possible to make a statement in addition to the one that was previously made.

Dr. David Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment that next week's business contains no reference to legislation to ban cigarette coupons? Will he assure the House that it is the Government's intention to table legislation and not to leave it to a private Member?

Mr. Crossman: Any hon. Member who feels disappointment at not finding this in next week's business must have a fantastic imagination of the business we are likely to do next week.

Sir H. Harrison: In view of the great concern throughout the country of the seriousness of the foot-and-mouth disease, will the Leader of the House get his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the latest stage before we rise, to make a statement on the situation and tell us what he proposes to do during the Recess?

Mr. Crossman: I thought that the situation was getting a little better. If there is anything further to say my right hon. Friend will, of course, make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Rose: In view of the recent launching of Human Rights Year, and the deteriorating situation, not least in Greece and Southern Africa, will my right hon. Friend undertake to set aside a day shortly after the Christmas Recess for a debate on human rights?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I can give any kind of guarantee that a whole day will be set aside. I said that we; would have two days on foreign affairs, one on the Middle East before the Recess, and one on the Far East afterwards, in both of which areas the problem of human rights most certainly arises.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when an opportunity will be found to debate the Report of the: Select Committee on Agriculture? Is he aware that the delay in re-establishing this Committee means that two months of the present Session have been lost in getting this Committee down to work?

Mr. Crossman: I hope that in the very near future the names of the members of the Committee will be published. There have been discussions through the

usual channels about a debate on the Report. It must take its place in the queue. There is now a formidable queue of debates on Reports from Committees. There is the Estimates Committee, to which we owe one as well, and I must be careful to space them out.

Mr. Coe: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity after the Recess for a wide-ranging debate on the future of local government, including the Maud Report on the management of local government?

Mr. Crossman: I shall consider the possibility of that. I think that we ought to consider carefully the timing of a debate of that kind. This is the first time that it has been put to me, and I shall bear it in mind.

Mr. Hirst: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 69, which deals extensively with the economic situation?

[That this House, acutely conscious of Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for the economic difficulties facing the nation, accept the underlying need for economic and financial measures to implement the letter of intent from the Government to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, but considers that such intent is totally inadequate to achieve the purpose of ensuring a long term financial and economic stability to the nation and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, first, to re-phase public expenditure to be anticipated from existing policies so as to provide an easing of demand on the part of the public sector of a further £500 million in the next two years; second, to limit drastically new policies that would inflict substantial charges upon the Exchequer and which could easily be postponed, such as the raising of the school leaving age; third, to enter into no further commitments for the granting of overseas aid before the end of 1969; fourth, having regard to the Government's policy of reducing military responsibilities overseas, to ensure a level of overall economies in defence expenditure not yet provided which can alone mitigate if not justify that policy so that savings greatly in excess of £100 million are achieved, and fifth, so to plan our national affairs that resources released


under the foregoing provisions are utilised for the encouragement and expansion of industry through lower taxation and increased investment in the private sector both at home and overseas.]

While I cannot anticipate the time for a discussion of that Motion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that his answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is completely unsatisfactory, and that a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on further measures to support our country are essential if a minimum of confidence is to be restored in the Government?

Mr. Crossman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Adjournment on Standing Order No. 9 gave an opportunity in the relatively near past for a debate of this kind. I cannot predict any further debate before the Christmas Recess.
With regard to the making of a statement, I shall communicate with my right hon. Friend, and if one is necessary it will be made.

Mr. Peyton: Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in denying the House of Commons the opportunity both to digest and to discuss the monstrously large Transport Bill? Has he had a look at it himself? Has he studied the fact that it involves a massive write-off of capital which ought, by tradition, to be discussed on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Crossman: I would not claim that I have read every page of it, but I have leafed through parts of it, and I realise the cerebral excitement of the intellectual adventure that it is to move from the beginning to the end of it. I appreciate the importance of the Bill, but I think that we had to make a choice, and my impression is that, by and large, the House thinks that we have arranged the business for next week in a way which satisfies things as far as we can, though I agree that there is a strong case for having a longer time for the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a start is to be made in Brussels next week on reaching an historic decision relating to a Resolution of the House, passed by the largest

majority in a very long time? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for a statement to be made about what is happening in Brussels?

Mr. Crossman: It depends on what happens. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if clear conclusions are reached which require a statement by the Government, a statement will come, but I cannot make arrangements for that now. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we fit these things in when the time arrives.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time after the Recess for a debate on the specific question of Britain's relations with Australia, an area in which our fences need very much mending?

Mr. Crossman: I have said that we are to have a day's debate on the Far East, and I would have thought that Australia was not excluded from that geographical part of the world.

Mr. MacArthur: If there is to be no statement next week on the general economic situation, can the right hon. Gentleman promise a statement about the impact on Scotland and the development areas of cuts in public investment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable public apprehension about the constant references to drastic cuts? People want a clear statement before the end of January about where the axe will fall.

Mr. Crossman: I think that we had better wait until a statement is made about the nature of the economic measures. I can give no kind of assurance that a Parliamentary statement will be made about the measures in advance of any statement about them.

Sir D. Glover: The time allotted for the Second Reading of the Transport Bill is totally inadequate. Even to read the Clauses will take up a half hour speech, and we are to be given six hours in which to debate the Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to suspend the rule? I suggest that he should suspend it until 10 o'clock the following morning.

Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to take seriously any suggestions on procedure from the hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on it, but I would not have thought


that it was the wish of the House that we should use the new Standing Order, or any others, to extend the debate to the next morning. I would have thought that the suspension of the rule, arranged through the usual channels, would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Sir S. Summers: As the Transport Bill contains Clauses affecting borrowing powers, may we take it that in due course the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the question of the Committee stage is not a matter to be discussed on the business for next week, but I shall be surprised if that actually happens.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr rose —

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Lady that there is no second round on Business questions

Mr. James Davidson: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to discuss with the Secretary of State for Scotland when an opportunity can be given to debate the Halliday Report? Will consideration be given to this being debated in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman to do me the courtesy of letting me discuss that with my right hon. Friend to see what can be done after the Recess.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you reminded my hon. Friend the Member of Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) that there was no second round on Business questions. Will you consider whether we have reached the stage of tedious repetition on matters which are not for business next week and on the Transport Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I give serious consideration to everything that happens in the House.

Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not expect the new economic measures to be announced before the House rose next week? Can he undertake that none will be announced before the House reassembles?

Mr. Crossman: I am not going to give any assurance about what statements may,

or may not, be made before the House reassembles. It may be necessary, in an emergency, to make a statement. I see no reason to think that it will be necessary, but I could not give a guarantee in advance.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no Order on Stansted next week, or this year? What are the Government's intentions?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I can give an assurance that there will not be an Order next week.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Transport Bill is three times the size of the Steel Bill, and involves £1,900 million of public spending, and as the Steel Bill went to Committee in October, would not it be wise to withdraw the Transport Bill next Tuesday?

Mr. Crossman: After due consideration, I must reject that proposal.

Mr. Emery: Reverting to the debate on the Transport Bill, would it not be for the convenience of the House to postpone this from next week's business and hold it over until there can be two days for the debate when the House reassembles, and in its place next week to have a debate on the fuel White Paper, which the Government have postponed a number of times?

Mr. Crossman: I think that if I had decided to postpone the Second Reading of the Transport Bill until after the Recess there would have been a howl of indignation from the Opposition. We will have the Transport Bill next week. I know that there are hon. Members who are ardently preparing for the Committee stage, and are anxious to get down to it.

Mr. Tapsell: In view of the fact that the whole of the international financial community is hanging on this, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the point about the date of the economic statement? As I understood, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), the right hon. Gentleman implied that there might be a statement before the House rose. Will he make clear when the statement is likely to come?

Mr. Grossman: I was asked whether there could conceivably be a statement, and I said that there could be. I said that I would communicate to my right hon. Friend the desire of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) to have a statement. I said that I did not expect a statement of the Government's further measures before the end of the Recess. That is all I said, that I did not expect it.

EARLY-DAY MOTIOKS

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I ask the privilege of the House to raise a matter which in my judgment concerns the dignity of this assembly. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the precaution of giving you notice of this. My intention was to do it on a point of order, but I am not certain whether it is a legitimate point of order or whether I should just ask for your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman can raise what he proposes to raise as a point of order.

Mr. Shinwell: I wish to refer to the practice which has been in operation now for two or three years—but certainly not before that, in my experience—of hon. Members placing early-day Motions on the Order Paper, many of which, of course, are legitimate in character. Some of them consist of criticism of the Government; and that is the prerogative of hon. Members, because such criticism can be answered by Ministers. But some of the Motions are derisory in character and many of them, in my submission, are frivolous.
May I venture to present to the House two examples which I discovered only today on reading the Order Paper? One is on page 1902, No. 80, and its title is "Human fallibility". Two hon. Members on this side are responsible for its submission. The Motion consists of a criticism of gentlemen who are not Members of this assembly, but are outside the House and are, therefore, quite unable to reply to this criticism. They refer to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries and the Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
In my submission, this is the type of early-day Motion which should not be

placed on the Order Paper. My reason for saying so is that those who are under criticism are unable to reply in this assembly.
The second Motion is No. 85, on page 1904, and is submitted by hon. Members opposite. It reads:
That this House notes with interest the Minister of Technology's attempt to be spry about his latest humiliating defeat at the hands of General de Gaulle and the French aircraft industry.
I cannot understand how this Motion was ever accepted by the Table Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Frankly, I cannot. It makes no submission to the Government relating to legislation either past or future but is merely a frivolous submission critical of a Minister who obviously is unable to reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Of course, very often in this House—I have had a long experience of it—there is a great deal of disagreement when I venture to address hon. Members and I accept that. I have disagreed with hon. Members and I have also disagreed with my hon. Friends —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the point of order. It must not be too long.

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the interruptions by hon. Members opposite, I should by this time have resumed my seat.
In conclusion, I would make a request with great respect, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask for an answer today, but would ask you to give very serious consideration to this matter, namely, whether Motions which appear to be derisory and which are critical of those who are unable to answer in this assembly, and which appear to be frivolous, should be placed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that the number of Motions on the Order Paper has reached farcical proportions? Last Session, over 600 early-day Motions were put down and it was obvious that whenever an hon. Member gained a place in the Ballot for a Motion he never selected one? Is it not getting rather a joke to have so many Motions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order —

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not pursue this too far, since we have a lot of business in front of us.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose—

Mr. Bell: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the House not to pursue it. Mr. Ronald Bell.

Mr. Bell: Further to that point of order. Is there not a convention of the House going back rather further than two or three years that when a right hon. and Hon. Gentleman intends to raise in this Chamber a matter which might be critical of another hon. Member, he gives that Member notice of it? I certainly thought that there was.
Secondly, is it not the case that it has been the normal practice of hon. Members to put on the Order Paper Motions critical of Her Majesty's Governments or of particular Ministers in them?

Mr. Speaker: May I deal with the point of order briefly. The question of what goes down on the Order Paper is primarily a matter for the Member himself. Members are adult—[Laughter.] Order. The Speaker has no power to interfere in what is put down in a Motion unless the Motion itself is out of order or unless it breaks the rules about Motions on the Order Paper which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will find on page 401 of Erskine May, and which points out, for instance, that a notice should not be irregular or unbecoming. "Unbecoming" is a matter of taste, on which it is very difficult for the Chair to advise hon. Members.
It also says that a Motion will be accepted unless it is not a proper subject for debate, or unless it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or unless it is designed merely to give annoyance.
On all these issues, Mr. Speaker has, from time to time during history, requested a Member to vary the terms of his Motion or even not to put it on the Order Paper. This question largely, though, must be left to the good sense of the House and the freedom of individual Members. I imagine that the House would take note of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. May I make a very short submission to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of what you have just said? If an hon. Member is precluded from raising a matter which he regards as of very deep concern to himself, or to the House in general, I can understand it being placed on the Order Paper, but there are alternatives for hon. Members, such as Questions to Ministers and Adjournment Motions.
What has happened this afternoon? Questions have been put to the Leader of the House about business and many arguments have been contained in the form of questions, as everyone will admit. There are opportunities for hon. Members to raise these matters without placing them on the Order Paper. They are derogatory in character, and, in my judgment, ought not to be permitted —

Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman's judgment!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will no doubt take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said and argue about it outside the Chamber, but the position is roughly as I have stated it. The Chair is unwilling to intervene in the freedom of hon. Members to put down Motions, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that
point of order —

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker is standing, and when Mr. Speaker is standing the hon. and learned Gentleman must keep his seat. I hope that we might move on from this. Sir Knox Cunningham.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Am I right in believing that, where an hon. Member cannot put down a Question to a Minister because of its subject matter, he is allowed, under Standing Orders, to put down a Motion? Has that not always been the rule of the House and, if so, should it not remain so?

Mr. Speaker: The rule of the House about what goes into Motions is much broader and less restrictive than that relating to Questions, but not quite in the absolute terms that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.

MAURITIUS INDEPENDENCE BDLL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is very simple. In the words of the Preamble, it is to
 Make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Mauritius of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth.
The Independence Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly made clear the wish of the Mauritius Government that the country should remain a monarchy within the Commonwealth. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the early attainment by Mauritius of independence. As the House knows, the question of Commonwealth membership is a matter for all Commonwealth Governments, who are now being consulted.
On an occasion such as this, it is understandable, and certainly traditional, that we should look back historically at the beginnings of our connection with Mauritius, which has lasted since 1810, when the island was captured from the French during the Napoleonic wars. Mauritius is something of a special case among our dependent territories in that it has no indigenous inhabitants, and never has had any. Indeed, all Mauritians are the descendants of immigrant forebears, who arrived voluntarily or involuntarily over a period of 200 years. The result is, therefore, a great mixture of races, religions and languages, although the official language is English, and the traditions of British Parliamentary democracy are maintained.
I believe that the population of Mauritius is as mixed as any in the world. For that very reason, the people of Mauritius will have special opportunities, as well as special responsibilities,

in the years ahead to prove what can be achieved by common sense, prudence, good leadership and a sense of unity in a relatively small island whose people are of very mixed origins.
The population has grown rapidly since its early settlement. By 1833 it had reached 100,000, three-quarters of whom at that time were slaves. Mainly because of the arrival of indentured Indian workers, the population increased to over 300,000 by 1861. From then on it continued to increase, but slowly. During the last decade or two, however, there has been a dramatic increase, mainly due to the eradication of malaria in the 1940s, so that the population of Mauritius has doubled since 1942 and is now over 700,000.
At the present rate of increase, the population will total about 2 million by the end of the century. These are formidable figures and undoubtedly this population explosion has been at the root of many of the economic difficulties facing Mauritius in recent years. This the people and Government of Mauritius know very well and for the last two years the Government there have officially sponsored family planning campaigns, a movement which Her Majesty's Government have encouraged by technical assistance.
Sugar has always been the backbone of the Mauritian economy. Joseph Conrad, writing towards the end of the last century, said:
 First-rate sugar cane is grown there. All the population lives for it and by it Sugar is their daily bread.
What he said then is equally true today. In fact, no other country is so dependent on the export of a single commodity. Sugar and sugar products account for more than 95 per cent, of domestic export earnings and for more than one-third of the national income of Mauritius. The relative prosperity which Mauritius has enjoyed since the last war has been due to the increased production of sugar and to favourable prices gained under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of sugar to Mauritius in the context of the Government's application to join the Common Market. Indeed, in his statement to die Council of Western European Union, on 4th July,


my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary singled out two Commonwealth problems for special mention. One was, of course, New Zealand, but the other was I he interests of the developing countries of the Commonwealth and the dependent territories, some of whose economies—and this applies particularly and spectacularly to Mauritius—are overwhelmingly dependent on their sugar exports.
At the same time, the Government of Mauritius are fully aware of the difficulties arising from such a heavy dependence on a single crop, and in recent years consideration has been given to ways of diversifying the country's economy by the introduction of labour intensive industries and the planting of tea and other cash crops. Tea development is going well, by the main difficulty of industrial development is the remoteness of Mauritius from its export markets and its lack of raw materials.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): And cyclones.

Mr. Thomson: I was about to say that the production of sugar in the whole economy of the island is greatly affected by the relentless cyclones, of which the two in 1960 were especially severe. These are some of the greater misfortunes woven into the pattern of the island's history. To meet the cost of reconstruction following the two cyclones in 1960, Her Majesty's Government agreed to provide financial assistance of up to £7·57 million.
In Mauritius, recent constitutional development has been rapid, but it is worth noting that the first steps towards self-government were taken as far back as 1885, when an elected element was introduced into the Council of Government at the instance of that somewhat turbulent Governor, Sir John Pope-Hennessy, whose statue today sands facing the Parliament buildings in Port Louis. His approach; to his task may perhaps be best illustrated by the following minute written about him by a Downing Street official in 1884:
 Sir John Hennessy's policy "—
the official wrote, no doubt in tones of some horror—
 is Mauritius for the Mauritians and he has already, from what I gather incidentally, made the Colony exceedingly unpleasant for the English members of the Civil Service".
Sir John Pope-Hennessy was in the great tradition of colonial administators in be-

lieving that his duty was to the people over whom he ruled, though, perhaps in tune with another English tradition, he was a great eccentric. But it was 20 years ago that a new Constitution granted a very wide measure of enfranchisement on the basis of a simple literacy requirement, and since 1958 the Constitution has provided for universal suffrage. Thus, there has been a long history and tradition of representative Government in Mauritius.
The present Bill stems directly from the Constitutional Conference held in London in September, 1965, at the end of which my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, now the Minister for Housing and Local Government, announced that it was the view of Her Majesty's Government that it was right that Mauritius should be independent and take her place among the sovereign nations of the world.
My right hon. Friend undertook, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that if, following a General Election held on a new electoral system, the new Assembly were to pass a resolution by a simple majority asking for independence, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to fix a date and take the necessary steps to declare Mauritius independent after a period of six months' full internal self-government.
The House will know that the General Election was, in fact, held on 7th August last, when the Independence Party was returned to power under the leadership of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. A new Constitution, granting full internal self-government, was introduced on 12th August and a resolution asking for independence within the Commonwealth was passed on 22nd August. With the passage of this resolution, it was clear that the conditions attached to the undertaking given in 1965 by my right hon. Friend had been fulfilled; and, following discussion which I was able to have with the Prime Minister of Mauritius when he visited London in October, I was happy to inform the House on 24th October that I had agreed with him that Mauritius would become independent on 12th March, 1968.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Seewoosagur—better known to his many friends on both sides of the


House by his more familiar nickname of "Ram"—for the wisdom and statesmanship which, over the years, he has shown in leading his country to the goal of independence, which is now on the point of achievement.
I also take the opportunity to remind the House that both the registration of electors, which took place in Mauritius in 1966, and the General Election last August, were observed by teams of independent and impartial observers drawn from the Commonwealth. The second team included two distinguished hon. Members of this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wands worth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark).
I express my appreciation to both these hon. Members and the other members who served on these groups of observers and to the Commonwealth Governments who so generously made the services of their observers available. The work done by hon. Members of this House and other observers was of material help in maintaining confidence in Mauritius in this difficult period and in helping it through this final stage of constitutional advance.
Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle): Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of personalities and their constribution towards this course of events, I am sure that he would wish to pay tribute to the leaders of the Opposition Party in Mauritius and particularly to Mr. Gaetan Duval.

Mr. Thomson: Yes, I am glad to do so and to pay tribute to the way in which Mr. Duval, in the best traditions of Opposition, responded to the election results in Mauritius. I believe the democratic habits established in all parts of the House in Mauritius are one of the more encouraging features in facing the problems which undoubtedly lie before Mauritius as an independent sovereign State.

Sir Douglas Glover: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures at the General Election this year? I think that many hon. Members would be very interested.

Mr. Thomson: It might be in the best interests of the House if I ask my hon.

Friend the Minister of State to give the exact figures when he replies to the debate, rather than my quoting them from memory.
I turn to financial matters, which I know many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested in because they greatly affect the future of Mauritius. The House will be already aware that a delegation from Mauritius, led by the Prime Minister, was in London in October for financial talks. The Mauritius representatives stated that for economic reasons resulting from the rapid growth in population and consequent heavy unemployment their Government would be faced with deficits in the capital and recurrent budgets for 1967·68. The Prime Minister told us that they were already taking measures designed to reduce the gap and the Mauritius delegation undertook to bring the recurrent Budget into balance by the financial year 1968·69.
They also agreed on necessary limitations in this year's capital Budget. On this basis, and subject to Parliamentary approval, Her Majesty's Government agree to give additional aid to meet the agreed residual deficits on recurrent and capital account in the Mauritius financial year, 1967·68. It was also agreed that there should be further talks early in 1968 between the British and Mauritius Governments about the question of British aid to Mauritius in the financial year 1968·69. After independence the resources of the Ministry of Overseas Development in the field of technical cooperation will, of course, continue to be available on request to the Mauritius Government, as to other independent Commonwealth countries.
I do not think that I need to trouble the House with a description of the Bill itself. It follows lines which have, I think, become familiar in recent years and is closely modelled on the Bills providing for the independence of other Commonwealth countries. The Minister of State will be happy to try to answer any detailed questions which hon. Members may ask during the debate about the contents of the Bill. I should explain that the Bill does not provide for the constitution of Mauritius as an independent country. As is usual, the Constitution will be embodied in an Order in Council to be submitted to Her Majesty


in Council after the Bill has become law. The terms of this Constitution will of course be discussed and settled with the Mauritius Government.
I might, however, perhaps give a brief explanation of the citizenship provisions of the Bill. These are in standard form and provide that subject to certain exceptions any person who before independence was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall cease to be such a citizen if he becomes a citizen of Mauritius. The Bill also sets out in detail the categories of persons who will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies even though they become citizens of Mauritius on independence.
These are people who have particularly close links with the United Kingdom or with a remaining British Colony. The categories who under this Bill will be entitled to retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, even though they also become citizens of Mauritius, are the same as in previous cases of British territories attaining independence.
The question of who will be entitled to become a citizen of Mauritius is one which will be dealt with in the Mauritius Constitution. In general, it is expected that the provisions will follow the general principles set out in the 1965 White Paper, but the details will be very much a matter for the Mauritius Government to decide and pending further consultations with the Mauritius Government is not possible for me to give details to the House at this stage. I hope to be in a position to do so at a later stage on the Bill.
In accordance with the undertaking given at the 1965 conference, we have offered to enter into a defence agreement with Mauritius. Negotiations with the Mauritius Government concerning the terms of this agreement are planned to be held in January with a view to the agreement being signed and brought into effect at independence. I am sure that the House will understand that before these negotiations take place it would be inappropriate for me to go into any detail about the terms of the agreement. But I can confirm that, in general, the agreement will make provision on the lines set out in the 1965 White Paper.
As the House will be aware, we at present enjoy certain defence facilities in Mauritius; in particular, we have an important communications centre there and also staging rights at Plaisance Airport. It is expected that the defence agreement will provide for Her Majesty's Government to continue to enjoy these rights and facilities.
I should not like this occasion to pass without recalling the long period of close friendship and co-operation between Britain and Mauritius, lasting more than 150 years. It is a long connection which the Mauritian people, I think, value as much as we do in this country. Independence does not mean cutting our ties with Mauritius; rather does it mean that our long friendship will be placed on a new basis—a basis which we trust will be the sounder in that it will be in harmony both with present-day circumstances and the wishes of the people of Mauritius.
Mauritius can be confident of our continuing good will and I know that the whole House will wish to join with me in conveying the deep and heartfelt good wishes of this House and of the people of Britain to the Legislative Assembly and people of Mauritius.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Commonwealth Secretary for his careful explanation of the Bill. It is grateful also for his interesting account of the events leading up to the decision that Mauritius, a British Colony since 1810, should become an independent State within the Commonwealth.
That decision having now been taken, we on this side of the House wish to associate ourselves with the right hon. Gentleman in wishing the people and Government of Mauritius success in all the difficult tasks that lie ahead. We hope that at all times the warmest friendship and understanding will prevail between our two countries.
I think that it would be wrong, however, to minimise the difficulties of the tasks that lie ahead. Mauritius, I believe, will be the twenty-third British-ruled territory to achieve full sovereign independence since the end of the Second World War. It is no mean achievement that successive British Governments have transformed the greatest empire the


world has ever known into a partnership of sovereign independent States in so short a time, and to have done so with so little disturbance and bloodshed and so much evident good will.
Throughout this period, in company with a great many hon. Members, I have held the view that on balance it is better to hurry on with independence rather than to delay it. For the choice in this vale of tears has rarely been between doing what we as rulers have believed wise and prudent, and taking a leap in the dark. Usually, it has been between taking one kind of risk or another. We have to keep in balance our ideas, born of long experience of governing others, as to how our self-appointed trust should be fulfilled with the aspirations of those we govern, the rights of minorities and the critical views of the outside world, including our Commonwealth partners. It has not been an easy task. But, by and large, the risk of staying too long has been greater than that of going too soon.
I recognise that it is not always as simple as that. Our purpose has always been to leave behind tranquillity and ordered government so that the links of trade and commerce remain unbroken and the new State has a real chance of building a viable economy and a responsible society. Yet it is precisely in these last stages of ending colonialism that we see presented the greatest difficulties of all, for here we are dealing with territories too small in size and too poor in resources to be viable and where the risks of independence are very great indeed.
I say this not because I wish to cast any doubt on the future of Mauritius— like the Secretary of State and so many hon. Members on both sides, I am an admirer of its wise Prime Minister; I number among my friends a good many Mauritians; they are a people of great charm and character—but because it is only right that we should think deeply about the future of a people who have long been associated with us and who by virtue of the Bill are now to chart their own course and have the responsibility of solving their own problems.
After all, reservations about the wisdom of independence have been expressed in Mauritius itself. They were expressed at the Constitutional Conference held in 1965. Indeed, the main issue at that con-

ference was whether the island should receive full independence or whether there should be some form of continuing association with Britain. In the event, Her Majesty's Government decided upon independence, provided that a resolution calling for this was passed by a simple majority in an assembly to be elected by popular vote.

Dr. David Kerr: This cannot go by without correction. What Her Majesty's Government decided was that the Mauritians themselves, as a result of their election, should convey to Her Majesty's Government their wishes, which Her Majesty's Government would abide by and have abided by.

Mr. Braine: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I was going on to say something like that. When the election was held, 90 per cent, of the registered electors—this is proof of a lively and virile democracy—voted but over 43 per cent, of the votes cast were for a party opposing independence.
However, the will of the majority prevails. The die is now cast. Mauritius will get her independence early next year and it must clearly be the earnest desire of all of us that it is made to work for the benefit of all her people. Nevertheless, for reasons which I shall give, I do not think that the passage of the Bill necessarily heralds a new dawn for Mauritius, or that we in Britain can now gaily shuffle off our responsibilities. There are a number of questions which are causing anxiety to my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I have no doubt, to hon. Members opposite who know the island well. I feel bound to put these questions to the Government. They touch on economic aid, defence, citizenship, and constitutional safeguards.
First, I think that we should be less than frank if we did not recognise that independence comes to Mauritius at a time of acute and increasing economic difficulty. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State refer to this. Consider the stark facts. Mauritius has an area of 720 square miles. On this tiny island, one-tenth the size of the Principality of Wales, there were crammed, in 1962, 681,000 people. Three years later there were 751,000. The Secretary of State mentioned a figure of about 700,000. I


would hazard a guess that the population of Mauritius today, or by the time independence arrives, will be nearly 800,000. The increase has been at the rate of about 3 per cent, per year. If this trend continues, there will be about 1 million people on this tiny island in 20 years and there could well be 3 million by the end of the century.
The budget this year is balanced only by virtue of British aid. I understand that the financial reserves of the territory are now reduced to nil. The staple food of the people—rice—has to be imported. In fact, nearly all the food, clothing and simple needs of the people have to be imported. The sugar industry, which provides about 98 per cent, or 99 per cent, of the value of the island's exports, is experiencing the gravest of difficulties. If it were not for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, the island would face stark ruin.
I was very glad to hear from the Secretary of State this afternoon a clear recognition that, if Britain enters the European Economic Community, there must be some special arrangement for a people, who have been closely associated with us, in good times and in bad, for so long. Although the Mauritius Government have undertaken to balance the budget next year, on the most objective view their prospects of success are not encouraging.
Thus—I do not say this with any degree of joy or satisfaction—it would be highly irresponsible for us to wave farewell to Mauritius after 150 years of close association without ensuring that the situation there does not immediately slide into economic chaos. I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State say that talks between the two Governments about budgetary aid for 1968 –69—I hope that I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly—are going ahead. This is what we would expect. I wonder what will be the position about long-term development aid after independence. I note that it totalled £681,000 in 1965. It was increased to £1·4 million in 1966. Surely this will not be cut off immediately after independence.
There is one aspect of this situation which should be stated here and now. If long-term aid is to be continued for a country with no reserves, which is having the greatest possible difficulty in balanc-

ing its budget and is faced with acute and increasing economic difficulties, it is imperative that that aid should be closely tied to definite projects expressly designed to strengthen the economy.
Surely these are matters which should be discussed now and not left until Mauritius is on her own. It is particularly necessary to make this point now at a time when our own capacity to provide aid is clearly under strain. I hope that the Minister of State will, in winding up, be able to give us, if not in detail, some indication of the Government's thinking on these matters.
I turn to the question of defence. At the Constitutional Conference in 1965 Her Majesty's Government agreed
in principle to negotiate with the Mauritius Government before independence the terms of a defence agreement which would be signed and come into effect immediately after independence. The British Government envisaged that such an agreement might provide that, in the event of an external threat to either country, the two Governments would consult together to decide what action was necessary for mutual defence.
It was also agreed—hon. Members will find it in the White Paper—that
 there would be joint consultation on any request from the Mauritius Government in the event of a threat to the internal security of Mauritius. Such an agreement would contain provisions under which on the one hand the British Government would 
help with the training of the Mauritius police and the security forces—
 and, on the other hand, the Mauritius Government would agree to the continued enjoyment by Britain of existing rights and facilities …
The right hon. Gentleman made a brief reference to a continuation of those rights and facilities.
A great deal of water has flowed around the Indian Ocean since 1965. We have withdrawn from Aden. We are proposing, I understand, to withdraw from Singapore. Yet the commitment to Mauritius is there in black and white, specifically laying down that there will be negotiations over a defence agreement before independence. Are these negotiations taking place now? If not, when will they take place?
More to the point, with the withdrawal from Aden and, later, from Singapore, how do the Government propose to make any defence guarantee credible? Is it


intended to implement the undertaking to consult the Mauritius Government in the event of a threat to internal security? What does consultation mean in this context? It is the essence of the whole Commonwealth relationship that consultation is a continuing process between Governments. What matters is what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do.
In this connection—I ask it in all innocence and would like a reaction from the Minister of State—is it altogether wise for Britain to involve herself in matters affecting internal security? In any event, what are the rights and facilities which are to be preserved for our use? There may well be a balance of advantage here, with Britain enjoying certain rights and facilities which may bring much needed revenue to Mauritius, while, on the other hand, we assist in making the island feel more secure. But let us hear what that balance of advantage is.
All these matters are directly linked with the Act of Independence. The House is entitled to know what action the Government are taking about them now. Equally, if it is not intended to honour the defence undertakings given in 1965, the House should be told now so that there is no misunderstanding either here or in Mauritius.

Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is not quite as innocent as he pretends. He will not have lost his memory. Perhaps he will cast his mind back to events in East Africa. Her Majesty's Government —this would be the will of both sides, whichever party were in power—will keep their pledges and guarantees. I expect it, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, though he may appear innocent, would expect the same.

Mr. Braine: I do not quarrel with that for a moment. It is a fact that this will be the last occasion when we can discuss the new arrangements for Mauritius. I should fail in my duty if I did not put questions of this kind to the right hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, I do not doubt that we shall have a clear answer.
I turn now to the citizenship provisions in the Bill. It is supremely important that the House should be clear about

what it is asked to approve here. Clauses 2 and 3 are drafted in a form which has been used in most of the independence statutes enacted in recent years. Their effect is that anyone who was a citizen of the Colony of Mauritius before independence automatically ceases to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on the appointed day, if—I emphasise "if"—he becomes a citizen of the new State, under its own citizenship law.
As it was agreed at the Constitutional Conference that all persons born in Mauritius either before or after the appointed day and all persons born outside Mauritius with a father born in the territory will automatically be Mauritian citizens, it seems that almost the whole population is covered. However, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the Bill provides for four categories of persons to retain their United Kingdom citizenship. Presumably, these people will have dual citizenship.
I can understand that persons who themselves were born, or whose fathers or grandfathers were born, in the United Kingdom should be allowed to retain their United Kingdom citizenship, but it is essential that we should understand the reasoning behind the other exceptions and the principles involved. Clause 3(1,b) and (l,c) cover persons who are naturalised or registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Under subsection (5), however, these do not appear to be people who were naturalised or registered in Mauritius itself.
If that is so—I shall be grateful if the Minister of State will confirm it—I am at a loss to understand who are the people to be covered by subsections (1,b) and (l,c). If a person was naturalised or registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies outside Mauritius and then went to Mauritius, he will not, according to Annex E of the Report of the Constitutional Conference obtain Mauritius citizenship at all. So he will not lose his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It is most important for the House to understand exactly what is intended by Clause 3(1) and, even more important, how many people are involved.
This brings me to the question of the Order in Council which will grant


Mauritius its Constitution. Annex E of the Report of the Constitutional Conference lays down guide lines to be followed as regards citizenship when the Constitution is drawn up. The Annex is brief. Hon. Members will find it on page 31 of the White Paper. Is it an exhaustive summary of what will be contained in the Constitution, or are there Likely to be additions or omissions?
I realise that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to go into detail about a Constitution which may be in process of drafting but which is not yet available and which, of course, is substantially a matter for the Mauritius Government. But the question I have just put is important. Until we know the answer, Parliament will have to take on trust what is to happen to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on the appointed day.
Clause 2(2) provides that
any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if he becomes on that day a citizen of Mauritius ".
That has little meaning unless we can be told exactly who will become a citizen of Mauritius on the appointed day. I hope that the Secretary of State grasps the point that, if the Constitution is to vary from Annex E, we cannot possibly know what the position will be. We must have an assurance about this.
Moreover, Annex E lays down that
 The Constitution should automatically confer either citizenship or a right of registration en the following classes of persons: —
All persons naturalized or registered in Mauritius as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, and all persons born outside Mauritius of fathers in this category, provided that in both cases they were still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on Independence Day.
The point here is that Annex E provides that the Constitution should automatically confer either citizenship or a right of registration on these two classes of persons. Will it confer citizenship automatically or will it give merely a tight of registration? If it gives citizenship automatically, we on this side shall be satisfied. If it does not, what happens if such persons do not apply for registration? They will presumably then not become Mauritian citizens, and so will not lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
This is a difficult matter to grasp, but an important principle is at stake. If these persons do not lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies will not they be able to claim a United Kingdom passport from the High Commissioner in Mauritius after independence? Does not it follow that we shall then be giving free access into Britain to a particular category of persons who have no more claim to it than has any other category now living in Mauritius? Is that intended? If so, how many such people are likely to be involved?
I have dealt with this point at some length, because unless it is cleared up we can have the anomalous situation after independence that no person of Mauritian birth and ancestry could enter Britain freely but someone who came to Mauritius from another part of the world, possibily a foreign country, and acquired naturalisation, or registration if he came from another Commonwealth country, and holds a British passport, will be able to enter the United Kingdom freely. I cannot think that that would be fair or equitable. Therefore, we should like a full explanation before the Bill goes to Committee, and when it is there we shall want to consider the whole matter very carefully.
Finally, I come to the Constitution. As the right hon. Gentleman told us, it will appear in due course as an Order in Council, but if I am not mistaken the Order will not be debatable in Parliament, and once the Bill is passed there will be no further opportunity of discussing the matter before the appointed day —of course, after the appointed day we have no power to discuss it. The reason apparently is that since Mauritius was acquired by conquest and cession Her Majesty has the prerogative power to make a constitution which does not have to be approved by the British Parliament. That is not unusual; it is a well-established practice.
One might think that it is, nevertheless, a somewhat odd practice, since the Constitution of a new State is the principal key to the use that may be made of independence. But that is the situation, and in a sense it is a mark of the mutual trust and confidence between ourselves and peoples and Governments long associated with us.
Nevertheless, we would expect the Constitution to follow the guide lines laid down in Annex D of the Report of the Constitutional Conference. The right hon. Gentleman said something to that effect. Neither my hon. Friends nor I have any quarrel with the guidelines. They seem very satisfactory. There is an elaborate code of fundamental rights which all of us would consider essential in any society, let alone a multi-racial one. We would therefore expect that the Government will ensure that all these safeguards are embodied in the Constitution.
Since the appointed day is only about three months away we assume that the Constitution is already in draft, and we expect that the Government would approve a departure from what is laid down in the Annex only if there were full agreement by all the parties to the conference. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister on that.
I have spoken a little longer than I originally intended, mainly because the citizenship provisions call for careful explanation. Moreover, I have thought it right to make these points and to ask a number of searching questions in order to demonstrate our feeling that the Act of Independence does not mark the end of the concern we feel for a small people long bound to us by ties of history and mutual advantage, but rather a renewal of interest in their wellbeing. One chapter in our relationship has ended; a new chapter begins. What matters is that the relationship continues.
It is good to know that Mauritius is likely to apply for full membership of the Commonwealth. May that association bring her strength and confidence in the years ahead. Subject to our receiving clear and satisfactory answers to the questions I have asked, I commend the Bill to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs in commending the Bill to the House.
I must begin on a personal note. I have had the great privilege of enjoying the personal friendship of the Prime Minister of Mauritius, whom we all know

affectionately as Dr. Ram, for many years. He has led his people with courage, dignity and a degree of tolerance which I hope and believe are appreciated by all those in the island who do not share his racial background. I can think of no one more fitted in temperament and character to lead into independence a country of that size, with its many problems. I join in wishing Dr. Ram and the Mauritian people well when they become independent, and in saying how much we look forward to their becoming full members of the Commonwealth and continuing their association with us.
I should like to take up one point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). I shall leave the detailed points to my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman said that Mauritius is the 23rd country which has attained independence in the Commonwealth since 1945. Let us give ourselves a pat on the back. This is indeed a record to be proud of. In a changing world we should be proud that we have—not without mistake, sometimes not without stumbling, and sometimes not without conflict, but by and large in a remarkably peaceful way—brought about something never attempted before, voluntarily to transform an empire into a commonwealth.
I had the privilege of serving for a very short, interesting and pleasurable time as Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am very glad to have had a small part in that great transformation, as many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have had in the past 20 years or so. I remember standing at the Dispatch Box to declare Mauritius's case. If my memory is correct, and I think that it is sound on this, I said, as many others have said, that the objective of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the dependent territories was to guide them towards democratic independence within the Commonwealth. I emphasise the word "democratic". We added the important proviso that we should work with them to enable them by our joint efforts to establish the economic and social foundations upon which, and upon which alone, democratic independence can not only be won but can be sustained.
Perhaps it was rather impudent of us to think that we could transplant our


Westminster model to Asia, Africa, the West Indies and elsewhere. I have sometimes been told that it was. But I think that it was psychologically right for us to seek to transplant its basic principles; the structure can be adjusted. I think that we have had a degree of success. All of us who have had the privilege of attending conferences of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are pleased to see how they have been organised and conducted along the lines on which we conduct our debates here.
I believe that we have sown the seeds of democracy in many of these countries even if, in the meantime, there have been disappointments. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have had their disappointments and, in particular, I myself hope that Nigeria will find peace and unity in the near future. I leave it at that. I have many great personal friends out there.
Since 1945, we have had the winding up of the old European colonial empires all over the world. I claim for Britain that, on the whole, we have made as good a job as any other country and I feel very proud of that. Thinking about these problems and how to implement our policy of bringing democratic independence to these countries, one of my principal worries as Colonial Secretary was what was to happen to the small territories.
In 1951, I ceased to be Colonial Secretary because the country, as it sometimes will, went awry and threw out the Labour Government. With my right hon. and hon. Friends, however, I went on considering what should be done about the problem of the small territories. It is a long time ago now but at the time we did develop a concept for them. The word "dominion" was going out of fashion, although, of course, it had been a very apt concept, and we thought that there was a case for the smaller territories being in, as it were, a halfway house, enjoying some kind of dominion status, independent in internal affairs but with many of their external affairs conducted in association with us.
We were particularly concerned with what would happen after these territories became independent. I thought then, and still do, that federation would have been the answer in many cases. I certainly believe that, in the West Indies, the best

solution was federation and I am sorry that the West Indies Federation unfortunately came to an end.
My thinking was dictated by the fact that so many of these small territories were sparsely populated, with the result that it would be difficult for them to man in full a democratic government. Secondly, in many cases, the economies of these countries had been in our hands —they would say that they had been in our grip—for centuries. We decided their economies, and they were built not for the purpose of creating and sustaining strongly based, viable economies for their own people but for our purposes. This is a moral responsibility of ours that we must face.
One example of this is, indeed, Mauritius. It depends on sugar. Who determined that the whole economy of Mauritius should be geared to sugar? Indeed, who determined that the economy of the West Indies should be geared to sugar? We did. That is true of the old colonial territories all over the world. Many of them have economies dependent upon one commodity. This is because it was the most profitable and the easiest thing to do when we were in control.

Mr. John Farr: Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that, in Mauritius, a number of other crops were tried but it was found that the one most climatically suited to the weather was sugar and sugar cane?

Mr. Griffiths: That is true. All I am saying is that, while some efforts have been made, not enough has been done to create in these territories strongly based and diversified economies to enable them to make something worthwhile out of their political independence. Sometimes we tried to diversify economies. I am casting back my memory but I recall that we tried to diversify the Gambia's economy by the production of eggs. That scheme came unstuck and, of course, we had great fun in the House. However, it is very important that every effort should be made to make Mauritius less dependent than it is now on one commodity. I know the difficulties. I know that there may have to be experiments and that there may be failures. But this is one of the things we owe Mauritius.
The second great problem of Mauritius is that of population. I hope that some day we shall have an opportunity to debate the subject of world population, which we have not debated for some time. Hon. Members will have noted the United Nations reports on population and the forecasts made in them about the population explosion. I have a feeling that this is going to be the world's most dangerous problem. If present trends continue, by the end of the century the population of the world will be double what it is now—and the population is increasing most in the poor parts of the world.
I believe that out of every 100 human beings in the world 56 live in Asia—the continent of poverty. The poverty is such that only those who have seen it can appreciate what it means. Mauritius is a small island whose population has doubled since 1942, according to my right hon. Friend, and by the end of the century, on that small island, one-tenth the size of Wales, there will be a population of 2 million.
I introduced my good friend the Prime Minister of Mauritius to some other good friends in this country who went out to study the problems of Mauritius, including those of social security and of population. I know how courageous he has been in all these things. But population is going to be his biggest problem and it is clear that one of the essentials— we can only mention it for it is not for us to give orders or instructions, since all sorts of human and religious problems are raised—is to encourage the people of Mauritius to take steps themselves to seek to control this growth of population by family planning.
Beyond that, we must still continue to help and aid them. I wish all good luck to the Prime Minister. I hope that he gets the health and strength to go on leading his country after independence, but if the population continues to grow at the present rate then economic development will not only not exceed the growth of population but will not keep pace with it. Mauritius will have an overwhelming problem of unemployment if that happens, which will be a very great tragedy to a small island venturing into independence.
There are many calls on us and these are difficult days for Britain. But let us

be frank—is anyone going to say that we could not do more for the poorer people of the world than we are doing? I say this to my constituents and to everyone else in the country. Here we are on the eve of Christmas, which we shall enjoy, but let us think of our own children and grandchildren who are going to live in the world in future—the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, and all the children of Europe—for they will live in a world in which the white people will be a tiny minority. We have to learn to live in equality and dignity with all these people and to help them to overcome their problems. I have said before that the future of the world may well be determined not by what we have come to regard as die great power centres, but in the jungles of Africa and the paddy fields of Asia. Here we have the opportunity not only to wish the people of Mauritius well, but to give our good wishes tangible form.
I have not had the pleasure of visiting Mauritius, but I hope that I shall some day. I came to speak here today because of my great interest in it and because of my great regard for its Prime Minister. But we all know its history, and more than one European country has had something to do with Mauritius. Next week or the week after there is to be an important meeting concerned with the future of Europe and our relationship with it. Every European country has its responsibilities to what used to be the old colonial empires. Most European countries have had colonial empires which are now standing independent, some struggling and some doing well and some not so well. I hope that if there is a United Europe, as I hope there will be, it will benefit not only the countries within its ambit, but those outside, remembering that some of its industrial strength was built from resources from those countries which Europe now has a responsibility to help.
I give a warm welcome to the Bill and I wish Mauritius well, hoping that our good wishes will not end with the Bill's passing, but will continue into the days when Mauritius is independent.

5.22 p.m

Mr. John Hunt: I want briefly but warmly to echo the good wishes to Mauritius on this exciting moment in her history. Last year, in


company with three other hon. Members, I had the good fortune to go on a Parliamentary delegation to Mauritius, when I was able to see at first hand the charm of both the island and the people there. In common with my colleagues, I was able to experience the hospitality and friendship of the people of Mauritius and to sense the very close ties which exist, and which we hope will always exist, between that tiny island and Britain.
Perhaps one of the most tangible illustrations of those ties is the almost fanatical following which our game of football has throughout that country. Even in the tiniest village one finds a football pitch. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) will remember, our visit last year coincided with the World Cup. I remember very well that on the night of the England-West Germany final we had been invited to a municipal dinner by Mr. Gaetan Duval; having arrived, we were astonished to find that our hosts had their transistor radios with them and that nobody sat down to dinner until extra time had been played and the result of the match finally known.
Although that sort of experience typified the wonderful sense of fun and gaiety in the country, there were many problems, too. No doubt they will be spotlighted even more vividly in the days following the final achievement of independence. There is, first, the problem mentioned by every hon. Member who has spoken so far, the population explosion, 700,000 people crammed into an island 38 miles long and 29 miles wide, with the prospect of a population of at least 2 million and possibly 3 million by the
end of the century.
The recent appointment of a family planning administrator in Mauritius is a recognition, however belated, of the importance and urgency of such work, and I hope that Britain will continue to give every possible encouragement and assistance in this respect in the years ahead, for this work is of crucial importance to the future of the island.
Another problem already mentioned is that of the dependence of Mauritius on sugar, 90 per cent, of the available arable land being planted with sugar cane, making the island terribly vulnerable to fluctuations in the world price of sugar. I stress again that the need in Mauritius

is for greater diversification, both industrial and agricultural, and I share the surprise expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) when he reminded us that, although rice is the staple diet of most Mauritians, most of it has to be imported. I hope that in this respect, too, the advice and experience of British experts will continue to be made freely and readily available to the newly independent Mauritius and that at the same time we shall do everything we can to encourage the new investment finance which will be so urgently needed in the years ahead.
A third problem has been mentioned only briefly. It is that which arises from the multi-racial society in Mauritius, with those of Indian descent making 60 per cent, of the total population and living side by side with Creoles, Chinese and those of European descent. Mauritius is an island of volcanic origin, and some of us there last year feared that the island was then on the verge of an eruption, not volcanic, but racial. The fact that that has been happily averted so far is a tribute to the statesmanship and wisdom of the Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, to whom tribute has already been rightly paid, a man who is widely respected and, indeed, loved by all those within the Mauritian community. If the standards of tolerance and humanity which Dr. Ramgoolam has set in recent years can be maintained in the new independent Mauritius, the country can go forward to a happy and prosperous future.
I warmly welcome the Bill. I am delighted to be associated with the congratulations and good wishes which will go out today from Westminster to a tiny island in the Indian Ocean about to stand on its own feet, and I am sure that we all wish it well.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: This is a joyful day for all the peoples of Mauritius and for all die well-wishers of that country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llannelly (Mr. James Griffiths), a former Colonial Secretary, said that this was the 23rd State to attain its full independence and dignity as a national entity in the Commonwealth. As each former colony becomes independent, so the next in line is smaller—let us hope also viable. The result is that increasingly the well-wishers


in this Chamber tend to be intimately versed in the affairs of the territory and to know many of the leading politicians and participators in the future independent society.
I look about me and see many who know the island well and have worked long with the people in it. If there is one man whose name can be identified with Mauritius it is Sir—or Dr. as we knew him—Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. One cannot say in too emotional terms what he has done and meant for the island. We heard earlier that the colony's history began in association with us in 1810. One can talk of an early Governor, the fabulous Labourdonnais, who almost built the city of Port Louis, the capital in less than six years, and the equally fabulous and even more eccentric Governor Sir John Pope Hennessey, who was also mentioned. If one looks at the island over the last few years the one man who has been so closely identified with it is Dr. Ramgoolan. Much will depend upon him, his behaviour and leadership in the coming months, let alone years.
He is cautious, tolerant, balanced, he has all the virtues of leadership which are so vital in this polyglot population. More often he will have to guide these diverse peoples. I have been personally connected with many of these leaders in this colony for the last two decades. If one was to mention names then one must mention his. No overseas association has given me more pleasure than that with the Mauritius Labour Party and the larger Independence Party, now merged with the Muslim Party of Mr. Razak Mohammed and the Independent bloc of Mr. Bissoondoyal. This is a fine team.
It would be invidious to name more on the island, but one should mention earlier founders of the Mauritius Labour movement, such as Anquetil in the early days. I should be failing in my duty, having worked with them in the past, if I did not mention two other men whose names will always be linked with this movement towards independence and emancipation: the trade union leader Guy Rougemont, whose name is now commemmorated with the square near the harbour, and also that gifted young barrister whom we lost so early in his political life Mr. Seenevassen.
There is no finer statesman in the Commonwealth than Dr. Ramgoolan, who has been so long in the leadership of this movement. His leadership of the majority party in the Chamber goes back at least to 1949. On an occasion like this I must mention, speaking as Chairman of the Anglo-Mauritius Society, the work that has been done at the Mauritius Commission here by Dr. Teelock and his charming wife. Dr. Teelock is a medical specialist and his wife has a law degree. I cannot imagine a more charming and gifted couple to be at the High Commission. They have been unceasing in their courtesy and help to all of us who have wished to contact people of Mauritius. They give a fine image of their people.
It will be stupid not to accept the words of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). There are of course snags and difficulties ahead for here is the classic example of monoculture. This is an island dependent upon one crop, sugar. When I was there some months ago an almost unfailing topic in all conversations was whether the United Kingdom would join the Common Market, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and what aid Her Majesty's Government would continue to give after independence.
We have an island of 720 square miles and a population of 75,000, which will go up to about 1 million in the coming years. Other than Barbados there is no other island comparable to Mauritius, and Barbados unlike Mauritius is near the wealthy populated lands of the United States and Canada, which can help to remedy her potential instability.
Mauritius has always been financially viable, except in extraordinary times of cyclonic damage. Other than this it has never had to ask for help from our Government, which is a wonderful thing in view of its population density, its import of food, its monoculture and the like. It is making, and has made valiant efforts. There is no other example of peoples of such diverse faiths, languages, origins and creeds living in such close proximity, and in such harmony—unless they are incited, and I use the word advisedly, by fluent demagogues.
One must be very canny about this, and if it is not presumptuous of me. I


should like to say a few words over the ocean to my friends in the island. I have worked with them in political campaigns, and I make my own personal appeal to them to exercise a little caution and discretion in the coming months, when moving into independence.
I want to comment too upon the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition after the results were declared. I have spoken before about Gaetan Duval, and hard things have been said of him at one time or another in this Chamber. However, he has been helpful and has democratically accepted the decision at the polls. If we can see this harmonious relationship continue after independence there is much hope. I speak feelingly when I say that I wish with all my heart that the young dominion gets off to a good start.
There is the delicate question of internal security. There have been difficulties here in the past, but I am convinced that any Government of this country will keep whatever pledges are given. I am certain that, as happened in East Africa, with Jomo Kenyatta, Julius Nyerere and Milton Obote, should the future leaders of this young dominion find themselves in difficulties due to internal disorder, our Government would do their best to help.
There will be difficult financial times ahead too. I hope that the civil servants will fully co-operate. If politicians are in difficulties because of the diversity of races, so too are the civil servants. The situation is similar to that in Kenya where there were Asians, Africans and whites which led to difficulties over promotion, pensions, privileges and pay. There is a need for self-discipline here. I do not know of any other colonial territory where as in Mauritius after, I think, two years, civil servants are allowed as part of their working contracts, to have overseas leave in the United Kingdom. This did not happen elsewhere. It will be an enormous burden on the Mauritius Exchequer if all civil servants wish this to happen. There will be changes in the internal economy and perhaps disappointments, but that is their business. Politicians are often asked to exercise self-discipline, but there is a need for the machine behind the politicians to exercise self-discipline, whether it be in finance or in loyalty to

their lawfully elected Government; the Independence Party, which is now a coalition of the three main parties.
The British Government have been generous in economic aid. A short while ago the aid to be given to Mauritius amounted to about £4½ million. After the coming of independence, international agencies and, I hope, many nations like Germany, France, the United States and Canada will help Mauritius. I was there a short while ago and I found that the Japanese were in. The Japanese have a big part to play in developing the deep-sea fishing fleet of Mauritius. Fish can be an enormous source of protein as an addition to the normal foodstuffs. Mauritius wants fewer imports and decidedly more self-sufficiency.
There are challenging times ahead. In my view, Mauritius has in Dr. Ramgoolam possibly the most statesmanlike leader I know of any young society. I place him on a par with Jomo Kenyatta. I hope that Dr. Ramgoolam will play in his society the same part which President Kenyatta is playing in Kenya and for which he is getting the adulation of many Members of the House who never thought that he would act in such a way as he has done.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be generous to this young dominion. I end with the words of Aneurin Bevan, who said to politicians:
The only fear that there is is fear itself.
I say to the people in the island of Mauritius that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. They have a bright future before them. There is no reason why Mauritius should not take its lawful place in the long line of emancipated colonies. At Commonwealth Conferences and in the United Nations, it will be alongside many other dominions, and I am sure that it will play as worthy a part as the others which have gone before.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) speaks with great knowledge and experience of Mauritius. I speak with very great diffidence because, unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to go to Mauritius, although I have read everything I could about the island


and I have heard from many how beautiful it is and what great opportunities lie before it.
As I have no specific knowledge about Mauritius, there are only two points which I wish to raise. First, I hope, like every hon. and right hon. Member, that Mauritius will find its future path easy. Independence has always meant responsibilities and problems as well as freedom. I was glad to hear from both sides of the House the promise that, although we shall no longer be in control, our friendship will be solid and that the right arm and hand of our fellowship will never be withdrawn. I think that people who say that because Britain has relinquished an empire she must find another role speak only a half truth. To continue to serve without retaining control is, in a sense, a higher destiny altogether. It certainly demands great qualities of forbearance and self-sacrifice.
However, Mauritius and many other countries like her still expect, and have a right to expect, a special contribution from Britain. I know that when one says that many people instantly think of money. Money certainly is needed. Diversification of the economy is clearly essential; many hon. Members have borne witness to that. Tourism may have a big future. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, the fishing industry is being developed and can be developed still further. Many of us are very interested in that matter. But, even more than money. I believe that what the people expect and want from Britain is that she should not only care about them now but should go on caring about them in future.
My other point is this. At the moment, nationalism and racialism are world movements. The colour of a man's skin or the language which he speaks are often held to be crucially important and are often the focus of wild emotion. The utter irrelevance of these issues to what the man is like is largely forgotten. Mauritius can help to bring about a cure. She is a small community, potentially rich in the amazing diversity of the origins of her people—from India, China, Africa and Europe. I understand that five, if not six, languages are in fairly common use. There is the possibility of great difficulties and differences arising,

but there is also the possibility that she can help to show the world how free men can live together in harmony regardless of issues like race and colour. It will obviously help her enormously in her independence and many others in the world if she can do that. I should like to add my voice in wishing her well.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. John Lee (Reading): After some of the acrimony which has attended debates on other parts of the Commonwealth, it is pleasant to be able to turn to a matter which is being settled peaceably and amicably and in a bipartisan spirit.
I find myself in almost total agreement with what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) said in his thoughtful and helpful speech. Naturally, we all wish to give our felicitations to this country coming to independence. We probably feel rather more confident about the future of Mauritius than we were about the future of some of the territories which have become independent in the last few years, notwithstanding the many difficulties ahead of it.
I very much agreed with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East when he touched, albeit delicately and tactfully, on the question whether a community as small as Mauritius, with the economic difficulties which it has, can be a viable economic institution. There is no doubt that we shall have to face this problem in connection with a great many more territories. There is still a remarkably large number of small island communities for which we have responsibility and for whom it will be extremely difficult to decide what is best.
Hon. Members have touched on the cruel dependence of Mauritius on one commodity. That matter hardly needs to be further emphasised. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) when he intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), but, while we have a right to congratulate ourselves on a great deal of yeoman work done in this territory, as in many other parts of the Commonwealth, we must bear a measure of blame for the fact that there are many territories, of which this is an extreme example, which are overwhelmingly dependent on one product.
It has always struck me, both while I was in the Overseas Civil Service and since, that while we have done a great deal of work in providing law and order, and a great deal of work in other fields of activity—we have brought in the plumber and the doctor and the policeman and we have also provided, through the aegis of the Colonial Forestry Service, an excellent service in providing defence against erosion—I do not think that we can say quite honestly, that the service provided by the Colonial Agricultural Department has been as good as it should have been. Part of the reason why, in Mauritius and elsewhere, the territories concerned are left at independence in this singularly vulnerable state is that there was nothing like enough long-term planning about diversification. Agricultural diversification is obviously one of the most difficult things to accomplish in that there are so many variables, so many factors which the most efficient administration in the world cannot control because of conditions of climate and soil;' and the latter, conditions of soil, can be remedied only after a long period of time. Nevertheless, I feel that we are bound to accept some responsibility for that.
I want to say one other controversial thing. I hope it will not be taken amiss when the report of the debate is read in Mauritius, as, obviously, it will be, but I cannot help wishing that before the decision to opt for independence was taken some consideration had been given to the idea of association with some of the other territories in that part of the world—and I do not necessarily mean British Commonwealth territories. Mauritius, as has more than once been mentioned, is a country with a French culture as much as any other, and it would not have been wholly inappropriate if some move had been made for association with, say, Réunion or Malagasy. Of course, it is by no means impossible that something of that kind will take place in the future after independence is achieved, but I am bound to say that I feel sorry that it was not attempted before.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that Réunion is a departement of France, will he not?

Mr. Lee: I said, not necessarily territories which are British Commonwealth territories, and Reunion is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, not yet independent. Malagasy is, and there the task of accomplishing association would be much easier. I understand that there are other thoughts in the minds of the Mauritian Government of, perhaps, association with East Africa, but clearly this is further away. The administrative tasks involved are always formidable in trying to gather up a federation, and this would be difficult, indeed.
I would add my voice of apprehension about the economic future of that country in the light of these misguided negotiations with the Common Market. I am one of the Members on this side of the House who have opposed British entry into the Common Market from the start —indeed, I would say to the finish, because it looks as though it has been finished in everybody's mind except that of the British Government. But the fact is that as long as we try to knock at the door, the longer shall we go on creating apprehension in the minds of these new Governments—in Barbados, Mauritius and the like—who will suffer catastrophically unless we get the kind of terms which everybody in this House knows perfectly well the Common Market countries are not in the least minded to provide.
It is worth remembering that under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement about half the crop brought in £41 per long ton, that of the remaining part, part goes to Canada, but that a great deal has to be sold at barely economic terms at all. If anything happened to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which has been extended year by year over the last few years, and it were not to be replaced by something of comparable generosity, then the consequences would be absolutely catastrophic for this country. I mention that not only as a plea to my right hon. Friend but as, I hope, another blow against the Common Market itself.
I turn now to one other matter. I cannot refrain entirely from being controversial in this matter. On the question of the defence agreement my right hon. Friend was understandably reticent, and indeed, anybody, unless he has no sense of humour at all, will be extremely reticent on the subject of a defence


agreement. I content myself with saying this, that if we are there to pursue, after independence, as we have in some other parts of the world, the farce of trying to continue what I suppose we may call a posthumous imperial military réle, do not let us get ourselves in the position, as we have in Malta and to a lesser extent in Singapore, of having to extricate ourselves, having made the countries concerned that much more dependent on us so that the argument against withdrawal is then pleaded, "We cannot withdraw because it will damage the economy of the country." Everybody in this House knows that that argument was advanced with great force over Malta last year. I only hope that a defence agreement does not come about at all, and that we provide economic assistance in a more reasonable and sensible form.
My final observations are about the constitution. I think it is a pity, in a way, that we have this debate—here again, I agree with an hon. Gentleman opposite—without the final constitution of the new country in front of us. There is no doubt that this is a most important responsibility, because it is the final responsibility which we have to discharge, the provision of a constitution which provides, amongst other things, for safeguards for minority interests. The history of Commonwealth constitution-making over the last 10 years has not been a very happy one, and, indeed, as I have said in debates before, the Commonwealth is littered with paper constitutions which have been torn up by the Governments soon after independence has been granted. I do not suppose for one moment that this sort of thing will happen this time, but I hope that the constitutional safeguards will provide quite seriously for the kind of safeguards which we would expect even, perhaps, at some risk of causing offence to the Government concerned. I do not think there is much risk, because I share the views of hon. Members on both sides that Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam is a man of sufficient political maturity that he is unlikely to be piqued by provisions in a constitution which provide for the rights of opposition.
Constitution making is, of course, to some extent a bluff. If we make it too restrictive, we provoke the Government

into tearing it up altogether. There is nothing, of course, that the ex-imperial Power can do about that after independence. If, on the other hand, it is too loose, then, if the Government are so minded, they can negotiate a way round the constitution and rip out the entrenched clauses. I have reason to reflect ruefully on this because I had a small part in the drafting of the Ghana constitution some 10 years ago. I thought that the constitutional safeguards were sufficient, but ingenuity was applied and the entrenched clauses were excised from it with remarkable speed.
What, then, are the points which I think my right hon. Friend should bear in mind? First of all, if there are to be entrenched clauses, then most of the human rights embodied as part of the 1966 constitution should be incorporated in them. Secondly, the appointment and constitution of the Public Service Commission should be treated as being of comparable importance. Thirdly, the Judicial Service Commission obviously must be on a par. Fourthly, I should have thought that careful consideration should be given to the electoral franchise and the constituency arrangements, though in this instance perhaps they are not so important since we are not bedevilled with the problems of a communal electoral division. Next, there should come the status of the Ombudsman, which is at present enshrined in the 1966 Constitution. Finally, if it is intended, as I presume it is, the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be included.
That sounds like a formidable list of provisos. I hope that it will not be thought insultingly suspicious if one says that they ought to be included.
I am one of the few hon. Members who regret that this country does not have a written constitution. The least that we can do as a final act is to provide a written constitution for Mauritius. Even though it may provide irritating legal problems from time to time, I am sure that it will be understood that we do it in the best possible spirit.
I wish the Bill well, and I hope that Mauritius will have a long and happy future as an independent country,

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I join with all other right


hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have welcomed the Bill and expressed their good wishes for the future to the people of Mauritius, but I am very glad that the debate has not glossed over the challenges and problems which lie ahead of the island.
I suppose that the greatest challenge is that of the multi-racial society which now makes up the population of the island— a society, as hon. Members have said, which grows so fast from year to year. I hope that there is an opportunity in that challenge, and the opportunity for Mauritius is to provide a model of racial tolerance and harmony for the rest of the Commonwealth and the world to follow.
The problems are there, too. Undoubtedly the greatest of them is the economy, and one wonders how Mauritius will fare, dependent as the island is on the sugar crop. Hon. Members have reminded us that the sugar crop is particularly vulnerable to world conditions. It is vulnerable in Mauritius to local conditions, too. The climate of the island which, in one way, is one of its charms, in another way can threaten the whole crop for a year with the occurrence of a single cyclone, as has happened in the past.
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to answer some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) about the nature of the economic aid to the island in the years ahead. I recognise that there are difficulties about being precise at this stage, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make some reference to it.
I want to underline the importance of the questions about citizenship which were raised by my hon. Friend when he opened from the Opposition Front Bench. I should say at once that my cry of "Oh" was an exclamation of emphasis and agreement and not one of discord or doubt about what he was saying.
I am very concerned about the inclusion of subsection (5) in Clause 3, which has the effect of making a most important and significant qualification to the meaning of the word "colony" in Clause 3(l,a). If one reads that part of the Clause in isolation, it appears to be fair and reasonable. However, when one comes to subsection (5), a shock is ad-

ministered because one finds that the one colony not covered by subsection (1,a) is Mauritius itself. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain precisely what is to be the position after the appointed day of those citizens of the island whose roots are deeply planted in the soil of the island. I have in mind particularly the Mauritians of French descent, whom I know well, but I include the people of other races who share with the French Mauritians a long heritage of life in the island, with many generations before them. It would be monstrous if the effects of this Clause were to treat them less generously than those who have come more recently to make their homes in the island.
I would remind the House that this is not simply the ending of a chapter of 150 years, though that is an elegant phrase from which I do not dissent. There are many families in Mauritius whose forefathers have been in the island for 150 years and more, who brought with them from France their language, culture and traditions and who have become some of the most loyal subjects of the Crown.
The House will remember, too, the enormous contribution which these people have made to the defence of freedom in the world, and particularly the gallant record of the Mauritians during the last war. One has only to look at the record of operations of the S.O.E. to see the long list of Mauritians who sacrificed their health if not their lives in the service of this country. I trust that these fine people and these close friends of ours over so many years will not be treated harshly by the terms of the Clause.
Unlike other hon. Members who have spoken, I have not been to Mauritius. I have many Mauritians among my family and friends, and I am proud of that. My link with the island is now distant in time, but it is close in affection, and I, too, wish the people of Mauritius every happiness and prosperity in their new independence within the Commonwealth.

6.7 p.m.

Dr. John Dunwoody (Falmouth and Camborne): I, too, would like to join hon. Members who have welcomed the Bill. It is perhaps one of the last of a long series of similar pieces of legislation which have given independence to countries that previously were Colonies of Britain.
However, I do not entirely share the self-congratulatory feelings which some hon. Gentlemen have expressed, and it is interesting to note that the quotation from Sir John Pope Hennessy that Mauritius should be for the Mauritians was first said some 80 years ago. That is a very long time, but it gives us all pleasure that, at long last, the time has elapsed and Mauritius will be for the Mauritians.
It is a beautiful island and a very small and isolated one. Like the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt), I had the pleasure of being part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Group which visited the island last year. If for no other reason, I am bound to express good wishes to a new State which has we wisdom to choose a medical practitioner as its Prime Minister and another as its High Commissioner in London.
What I want to do in the few minutes for which I intend to speak is not to enlarge upon the hospitable and friendly nature of the people or the country, but to outline the three key aspects about which the new State will face real problems, and to outline some of the steps which we should be taking to try to help. These three aspects are: first, the problem of over-population; secondly, the problems that inevitably result from the racial kaleidoscope that this island represents; and, thirdly, the problem of an economy that is almost totally dependent on one crop—sugar.
Over-population has been touched on by many hon. Members. The population of this island haw now risen to some 750,000 and, with a density of population of about 1,000 to the square mile, it must be the most densely populated agricultural State in the whole world. The problem is exascerbated by the rapid increase in population. The increase mentioned was about 3 per cent, per year. The birth rate is about five times the death rate, so the population is rising very rapidly indeed.
We have in this racial kaleidoscope people of differing races and colours, people of differing origins, people whose ancestry goes back to the Asian countries of India and China, and people whose ancestry goes back to the European countries of England and France. There are many, of course, whose ancestry is linked with the nearer nations of the

African sub-continent. Most of these people and their ancestors have lived for decades—in some cases for centuries— on the island. We should remind ourselves that Mauritius is one of the few parts of the world where one cannot talk of immigrants, because, before its discovery, it was totally unpopulated by the human race.
Together with the problems arising from this kaleidoscope of race, there are the different languages that have been mentioned and the differing religions that are inseparable from a community with such complex origins. For some considerable time it looked all too often as though the political differences in the community were becoming too closely identified with some of these racial and religious differences. One of the features of Mauritian politics—and this shows a most encouraging sense of maturity for such a new nation—is that over the last few years this tendency to identify race, origin and language with a political position is gradually being lost. One is seeing a most encouraging spread of political parties between the various racial groups.
The problems of the economy are linked primarily to this one single crop, sugar, which at the moment represents about 96 per cent, of the island's exports. This crop virtually covers the whole of the arable land. Despite efforts to diversify agriculture, by the introduction of tea and tobacco, the combination of climatic conditions, the type of soil and the risk of cyclones every few years, means that it is exceedingly difficult to introduce other crops that have the same assurance of profitability that sugar has had in recent years.
The economy of the island faces a difficult and critical time, not only because of uncertainty about the future of sugar, but also because of the fall in the price of world sugar over the last few years. This is affecting the whole economy. It has resulted in a tragically high rate of unemployment which has given rise in the fairly recent past to civil disorders in one or two places. The tragically high rate of unemployment is all the more serious, because this is a community of high educational standards. Compared with Afro-Asian standards, they are the highest in this part of the world.
Our responsibilities are real not only from the colonial link, the link of history,


or, as has been said, because a certain proportion of the wealth and affluence that we enjoy has derived from exploitation in years gone by of countries like this, but also because we see in this small island a microscosm of so many of the problems that we are facing throughout the world. I suggest that there is no other one place in the world where so many of these problems are concentrated together. When one considers it, there is strong reason to regard Mauritius in some ways almost as a laboratory for the rest of the world in solving some of the most difficult problems which will face us in years to come.
We have seriously to consider the question of population control by one means or another. This difficult problem, inseparable from family planning, is for the Mauritians to solve, but they need all the help, encouragement, aid and assistance that we can give them. Do not let us delude ourselves. Over half the community is now aged under 20, and if we were able overnight to introduce most effective methods of population control, it would still go up very rapidly.
This makes one think of the question of emigration from the island. This is not the time or the place—indeed, I would be ruled out of order—to discuss the Commonwealth Immigrants Act at any length, but the problems of Mauritius show some of the adverse effects of this legislation. They are particularly marked in Mauritius, because Mauritius was late in the queue of countries from whence immigrants came to us in large numbers. Its quota is very low. This is a pity, because Mauritians are far more readily absorbed into our community than are the large numbers of immigrants who have come to us from many other countries. One hopes that it will be possible for some of these Mauritians of ability, with training and qualifications, who want to go places, to use their qualifications to find places to which they can go.
I have mentioned the racial problem. Despite the encouraging tendencies for changes in the political parties, despite the increasing understanding of racial and linked problems in the island, this is still a difficult situation. It is still fragile, almost brittle, and it would take little for explosions to occur. I support hon. Members on both sides of the House who did

all they could to advise restraint to all those involved in these spheres on the island.
Concerning the economy, I think that perhaps we could look further into tropical agriculture to see if there are solutions to the one crop economy, of which this island is probably the most classic example in the world. One would like to see agricultural diversification, and development of the fishing industry. We should realise that if we and the other countries traditionally linked with Mauritius are not prepared to play any part in this, Japan certainly will play a very big part in it. It would be a pity if we were not able to share in the development of deep sea fishing in this part of the Indian Ocean.
The tourist industry has a real future. Mauritius is a beautiful place and I see no reason why tourists, if they go, as they do, to the West Indian Islands from Britain and North America, should not go in equal numbers to Mauritius in the not too distant future.
Mauritius is an island of high standards. Although we may regard it as a developing nation, it is not comparable in most senses to other colonies that have gained independence in recent years. It has high standards, particularly in education. By Afro-Asian standards it compares remarkably well. It is possible to envisage a time when this little island, situated in the sea between Africa and Asia, could become a catalyst, a leader of example to the many nations of Africa and Asia that face the economic and racial problems that I have outlined. In Mauritius we find the cultures of Asia, Africa and Europe and the peoples of those three Continents blended together.
This Bill will not only forge a link between two independent sovereign States, but its passage through the House of Commons will give us an opportunity of wishing well to the Government of Mauritius and all the people of this island.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: Before I go any further, I would like to express the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who, as the


House will remember, with some distinction led a Parliamentary delegation to Mauritius in 1963. He has asked me to say that he has unavoidably been drawn away by a family bereavement, otherwise he would have been here to express his good wishes to the country on the new road on which it has embarked.
Probably the only contention which has been raised during the debate is whether the British Government were fair in the past in leaving the country entirely on what has been described as a monoculture basis. Several hon. Gentlemen opposite referred to the fact that possibly we were responsible for not trying to diversify an agricultural economy more than we did. The answer is simply that not only are the climatic conditions supreme for the country's main crop, but that even if one can find something else which will grow in this volcanic and peculiar climate, one has to find a market for it, and Mauritius is thousands of miles from any mass markets. Before the war refrigerator ships were few and far between, and it was only sugar—and one or two specialised crops of that nature— which could be transported in bulk with a certain amount of economy.
The last time that I had the pleasure of being in Mauritius was earlier this year. I had the privilege, too, of getting to know Dr. Ramgoolam, the Prime Minister. Both he and Mr. Duval fought a very fair election, and, having fought it, are playing the result even more fairly. I feel that in Dr. Ramgoolam Mauritius has a sound, steady and experienced leader, He is, after all, implementing one of his election promises. One of his platform promises during the recent election was that if his party were elected to office he would seek early independence within the Commonwealth. This is the democratic way in which things work in our Commonwealth. He is now seeking that independence, and we must wish him good luck.
In opening the debate, the Minister referred to the amount of economic aid which had been agreed for Mauritius for 1967–68. He referred also to the fact that we initially started giving economic aid to this country in 1965. It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that this tiny island, grossly over-populated though it is, succeeded

in paying its way until 1965. It is not a question of not having given aid before then. The country never even asked for it. I think that the example of the Mauritians in endeavouring to plough their independent furrow is worthy of recognition by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The fact that they have been able to carry on in such a noble way has been due almost entirely to the protection afforded by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. When I was there a few months ago, I learned that 98 per cent, of the island's economy is still dependent on sugar. I learned, too, of the efforts which have been made in recent years to diversify the economy. Today, they are trying to grow sunflower seeds and potatoes, and they have a small, but thriving and hopeful tea industry. But these things take time. It is not just a question of growing something. A market has to be found for it, and when I was there I learned from the highest authority that the estimate of the time needed for adequate diversification of the economy is 40 years, which is a considerable time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to the population explosion on the island. This is a problem, and perhaps it can be rather graphically described by saying that half the population is under the age of 20. The country is desperately short of land, and the people there are pioneers in their attempts to help themselves. They are pioneers in the unique method of cultivating sugar, whereby, between the rows of sugar cane, so desperately short of land are they, they plant another crop. This is called inter-row cultivation, and they take this crop off at the right time of the year before the surrounding sugar cane comes up to engulf it. They are doing this quite successfully with sunflowers, from which they can extract sunflower oil.
When I was there I saw, too, how volcanic hillsides were being transformed by the use of heavy caterpillar bulldozers, to extract, after months of hard work, an acre or two of real volcanic soil. Between the high piles of boulders, between 15 and 20 feet high, they plant two or three extra rows of sugar cane, and think that many months of hard labour have been worthwhile. Mauritius is


making great efforts to help itself, and I know that the House will wish her well en her new course.
It would not be right to sit down without paying a small tribute, perhaps a personal one, in which I think the House will join me, to the way in which the Governor, His Excellency Sir John Rennie, has maintained delicate and skilful control of a tricky situation during the past few years. Sir John has been in a very difficult position, as indeed any Governor must be at this time and state of any new nation, and to him we owe a vote of thanks.
Good wishes can be voiced by hon. Members on either side of the House, and by both Front Benches, without any obligation or any cost. There is one tiling that I know Mauritius would like us to do for her. If we are going to do anything that means something for Mauritius, we ought to give her a firm undertaking in relation to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This is absolutely vital to the country, and I deeply regret that this year, for the first time, it was not extended for another year to 1975.
The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement works on an eight-year cycle. Because a sugar cane plant enjoys an eight-year cycle, it is essential to have a guaranteed market eight years ahead, and this year, for the first time, due to the approaches made to the Common Market, we were unable to give the negotiating countries at the Conference held in London recently, a guarantee for 1975. If we really want to help Mauritius, let us renew in perpetuity an Agreement which is valuable not only for Mauritius, but for those in the United Kingdom who consume, and enjoy, sugar.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I warmly welcome the Bill and join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing good wishes to the Legislative Assembly and the people of Mauritius for their future. We have ties of history, sentiment and mutual interest with the people of Mauritius. Happily, these links will continue and prosper, since we have the expectation of working very closely with the people of Mauritius in the Commonwealth.

Some of us sometimes forget that there are about 87 branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association throughout the world.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) emphasised, we have a great deal of which to be proud, in that over the past 20 years we have decolonised more than 700 million people. It might be noticed in this debate that our failures have received far more publicity than the much larger number of our successes. As anyone who has visited any overseas branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association knows, Bills similar to this have been carried through in the past by the people who have won their independence, and this reflects very well on the policies of successive Governments since the war.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) emphasised the importance for Mauritius of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I was with the hon. Gentleman when we were told that diversifying its economy fully would take 40 years. I was also told by a very eminent authority that the decline of the negotiated price quota under that Agreement is of crucial importance to the whole development of Mauritius and that its removal would cause disruptions "too disastrous even to be worth detailed analysis".
Other statements, no less alarming, have also been made. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, who has a most distinguished record in helping the poorer Commonwealth countries, has spoken of the disaster, economically, socially and politically, which would ensue were we to cancel or even phase out the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
There is an illusion that we could enter the European Economic Community and guarantee the protection of places like Mauritius which are dependent on the Agreement. It is argued that Mauritius may be given associated overseas territory status. Under the Yaounde Convention, sugar is presently excluded from the schedule of commodities covered by the E.E.C.'s Convention of Association, so for Mauritius to have associate membership of the E.E.C. would in no way help it in its problem.
Reference has been made to the fact that Mauritius is almost entirely dependent upon one crop, and we all appreciate the reasons for this. The most important is its latitude and the fact that it is subjected to the cyclone. Sugar is one of the few crops which can withstand the cyclone, at least to some extent.
The six members of the E.E.C. are all producers of beet sugar. The sugar regime of the E.E.C. which will come into operation in July 1968 has now been determined. Great fear was expressed to me in Mauritius that the E.E.C. is now a net exporter of sugar. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for State will express his deep concern about this. Joseph Conrad was right to say that sugar is the daily bread of the people of Mauritius. It is a very poor country.
I was greatly impressed while I was there with the friendship of the people to visitors and their desire to make their country a going concern after independence, but I hope that it will not be forgotten that there would be a certain immorality in giving them freedom but at the same time denying them the possibility of thriving in circumstances of freedom.
If there is any question of phasing out the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement because of our application to join the Common Market, this would be a serious possible threat to the people of Mauritius. The Prime Minister has said that he regards it as his bounden duty to protect the interests of the poorer Commonwealth countries in this matter, and I hope that all parties and all hon. Members will join me in emphasising our determination that we shall not seek what some would regard as our economic advantage to the detriment of the poorer countries of the Commonwealth. I warmly welcome the Bill.

6.37 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central): This debate has been characterised by a charming friendliness and consensus on both sides and by commendably brief oratory. This is therefore unique in many respects, which is highly proper in dealing with a case like Mauritius. I have no intention of spoiling a splendid record, but I cannot forbear paying a few

tributes. No one has paid a tribute yet to the Commonwealth Office. I refer not to the Ministers, who inevitably and invariably do a good job, but to the people in the Department who have for many months faced difficulties in Mauritius and whose handling of its problems we should heed.
My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary was kind enough to say some nice things about the two hon. Members, of whom I was one, who were in the team which recently observed the Mauritius elections. I am grateful, but I want to emphasise one aspect of the fact that a Commonwealth observer team was sent there. I am a devotee of the Commonwealth, but on the day that the six of us came together to go to Mauritius, and from then on, the Commonwealth was made a new and live reality for me.
I must emphasise the extraordinary improbability of bringing together from the most scattered parts of the earth-Trinidad, India, Canada, Britain and Malta—six men who have never met before and then setting them a task which certainly three of us had never embarked upon before, and then getting the result from us all working together, imbued with this same spirit of service to the Commonwealth. This should not be overlooked. I want to emphasise how happy if hard-worked those few weeks with my overseas colleagues were.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and, I am sure, others to say how pleasant it has been to have Dr. and Mrs. Teelock with us here in London. They rightly enjoy the esteem and affection of hon. Members, and it is a matter of great regret that, perhaps, the excitement of approaching independence has led to a recent illness which has deprived us of happy communications with Dr. Teelock. We look forward to his being translated from a limbo existence as a sort of High Commissioner for a territory which has no right to one to a real High Commissioner in the next few months.
The recent election in Mauritius was a testimony to its political maturity, and I hope that when the constitution is discussed and agreed upon some heed will be paid to the minor comments of the observer team about the shortcomings of the electoral system which we thought we


saw. These were minor shortcomings which did not in any way modify the reality of the vote, which was very striking.
There is a lesson for us to learn in respect of the way in which the election campaigns were run in Mauritius. It would be quite something if one could win elections on the basis of the quality of one's campaign. The campaign conducted by the defeated Opposition in Mauritius was remarkable for its imagination. It was remarkable not merely in terms of the money expended, but for the energy and electoral skill which was deployed—in contrast to the campaign conducted by the Independence Party, which was elected, which organised a thorough-going, honest, forthright and energetic campaign, but which lacked that spark of what one can only describe as the joyousness which was true of the cither side. Nevertheless, the Independence Party won a victory of dimensions which surprised not only that party but some observers who know the country well.
One must ask not only why this happened, but a number of questions on other aspects of the country's internal politics which have not been mentioned today. The Indian population of Mauritius, about 60 per cent., differs enormously from the Indian population of other African countries. They were brought to Mauritius following the abolition of the slave trade as indentured labourers. The distinction, as it turned out, was a legalistic one which made little difference to the kind of squalid existence which was imposed on these Indian labourers until recent times. So recent was this that today many Indians in Mauritius have genuine memories of being treated in no way different from the worst kind of treatment received by slaves on American sugar plantations. Their attitude towards imperialism, colonialism and, indeed—I must admit this—to people with white skins, underlies a great deal of the thinking of Mauritians today.
I do not mean to convey the impression that there is constant hostility. Indeed, one of the humbling things which we should face is the foregiveness which the people of Africa and elsewhere are prepared to adopt towards us for the sins of the past. There is no doubt, however, that politically, this resentment at the

most recent ill-treatment which they received underlies the demand for independence—the need to feel that the people of Mauritius are free to determine their future, untrammelled by the interference of those whose grandparents and great grandparents interfered in an unforgiveable and inhuman way.
There exists a hostility there to the French. When the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-Arthur) talked about the need to preserve the ancient historical traditions of the French, I wanted to assure him that my concern is much more to preserve the ancient and historical traditions and culture of the Indians, the Chinese and of the general population of Mauritius. The French have shown themselves well able to take care of themselves—so well, indeed, that when reference was made to our failure to develop an economy with a multiplicity of resources, I could not help but feel that the responsibility for that should be laid not at the feet of any British Government but, rather, at the feet of the French planters who have been determined to maintain this highly profitable cropping system. The difficulty is that people who want to diversify the crops are obstructed because such large tracts of land are owned by the French planters that the introduction of alternative crops on an economic basis cannot be undertaken on relatively small areas of land.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the fact that sugar is the one crop that is suitable, that exists and that is the whole basis of the Mauritian economy. I cannot help feeling that, as we identify the problem, we grope towards a solution. We are infants in this matter. We may be brilliant economists —though I suggest that no hon. Member who has spoken today is a brilliant economist—but Mauritius has had the benefit of some of these gentlemen, including Professor Meade of Cambridge and agricultural economists sent by the United Nations.
The fact remains that none of them are able to come up with an answer to this one-crop economy problem. Of course, if someone could devise a method of converting volcanic rock into face powder, cement or building material, this might be a solution because volcanic rock


is about the only natural resource Mauritius has had since the last dodo was destroyed a hundred years ago or more. Mauritius has an unwelcome sort of habitat and, in some respects, an unwelcoming climate. It rains a great deal, and when it rains it makes a wet weekend in Manchester look quite attractive.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) referred hopefully to the tourist trade, I agreed with him in a way. A sunny day in Mauritius, as against a wet day there, is like living in a travel brochure presented by B.O.A.C. It is wonderful. I appreciate, too, that British catering interests have begun to show increasing attention in the potential of Mauritius, but this is not something that will develop rapidly—say, over the next five or even 10 years—because the problems of building in Mauritius and of obtaining adequate sites for catering and so on are extremely great.
We are, therefore, thrown back to the other problem which has run like a thread through today's debate; the problem of over-population. This dilemma is not unique in Mauritius. It is worldwide, although it is unique, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne pointed out, in terms of the youth of the present population.
My hon. Friend did not identify the problems of promoting an adequate family planning and birth control system. When in Mauritius a couple of months ago, I took the opportunity to look at the country's family planning programme. The people there had the benefit of active, thoughtful and competent family planning advice from an adviser who had gone out from Britain. While I was there Professor de Silva arrived from Ceylon. He had been brought in under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O. and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to advise on this programme.
However, working in the field, the difficulties of getting wives to accept a limitation of family has nothing to do with the aesthetic attractions of using a birth control appliance. It has a great deal to do with the cultural need of a community to have large families. It is a recognition, which is felt by many primitive peoples, that the only way to accumulate capital is to have children, and

lots of them. It is felt that children are necessary to preserve the race and because the death rate among children is so high. This underlies a great deal of the reason why people in Mauritius and elsewhere resist the idea of controlling the number of children they have.
Even a woman with seven or eight children is anxious to have more and often such women cannot be persuaded that to have more would be bad for those she already has. Religion does not come into this. I am referring to Hindu women and not Catholics. The Catholic population in Mauritius is participating in the family planning programme and, on the basis of projected estimates, it is thought that a dent will be made in this population explosion within a measurable time; say, within five years.
We are, then, faced with the problem of food supplies in a country with a rapidly rising population. This is, of course, allied to the problem of family planning in the sense that the people of Mauritius are rice eating and that Mauritius is a place where rice cannot be grown, however hard one tries. It is as much a problem of changing people's food habits as it is of changing their family habits.
These are the sort of problems which face all concerned in Mauritius, and they are not easily solved. They have not been answered either in this debate or by people outside. Is independence the right answer to these problems?
There is no right answer to the problems of Mauritius. Independence is right because the peoples of Mauritius have voted it right. That is the only relevance of independence to the situation which faces Mauritius today. The responsibility of the new Government is immense. My right hon. Friend, when introducing this Bill, recalled that the Prime Minister is known affectionately throughout the island as Ram. He is also known as Cha-Cha, which, I understand, means Uncle. His avuncular attitude extends not only to his party but to Mr. Gaetan Duval, who is now leader of the Opposition but was once a member of his Government and his party. Between these two, there is a very great bond of friendship.
I am anxious that the conflict between the slave labour of yesterday and the French planter tyranny of yesterday


should now pass and the Government should proceed with all speed to a constructive; attitude by bringing in as much aid as possible to the island. It badly needs that aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to high educational standards. This brings out the difference in Mauritius from many other countries. It does not reed administrative aid; it has all the administrators and more than it can make use of, but it needs technical aid.
I hope that I do not introduce an unnecessary note of criticism. In the north of the island, near the most beautiful gardens of Pamplemousse, a new hospital is being built. It is a most expensive hospital. This seems to be the thing for developing countries just because a hospital is the thing to have. I also saw the hospital in Port Louis. It has inadequate drains and kitchens and poor resources. First-class medical and nursing staff, doctors with higher qualifications from London and Glasgow are doing remarkably good work there, yet money is being spent on a new hospital in the north of the island. This is a mistake. Many problems could be better solved without a new hospital being brought into being in that part of the world. It is not administration that we should send to Mauritius, but technical aid. Doctors complain about how cut-off they feel. When a visiting professor goes from Britain to Kenya he does not hop over to Mauritius. He should do so because they need that kind of contact.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) about defence aid. I do not go with him all the way. It is reasonable that an island which seeks and asks for aid should certainly expect to get it from Britain. I go with him all the way in urging that we should not use pressure on Mauritians to accept from us a defence agreement, which seems to be a growing likelihood now that we have abandoned Aldabra and are thinking of pulling out of Singapore. The possibility of a defence agreement being, not exactly imposed on Mauritius but being asked of Mauritians is, I think, a reality. I urge that we should not make that mistake.
One of the great facts about Mauritius which has not been mentioned this after-

noon is its remoteness. Even during the last war when Mauritius was virtually indefensible I am told people on the island were in constant daily dread of attack by Japanese submarines, but it was never taken over by the Japanese. Its remoteness underlies some of its more economic problems. It underlies the tourist problem because one would have great difficulty to persuade people to go over long ocean wastes even to a delightful tropical paradise. Let us not make the mistake of creating a new Malta situation whereby H.M.S. "Mauritius"— our present establishment there—is built up into a new defence establishment in the Indian Ocean from which perhaps we might want to withdraw in ten years or so leaving the Mauritians with a still more unbalanced economy. We must be honest about the kind of corruption which a defence agreement can carry with it economic as well as social. I hope that we shall spare Mauritius the pain of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading also referred to association status. This was never an issue except that of association with Britain which was a fighting plank for the Opposition party. That party wanted association with Britain as an alternative to independence. I have grave misgivings—again on grounds of remoteness—about possibilities of a fruitful federation with any neighbouring territory. The island of Rodrigues is two steamer days away from Mauritius and is part of the administration of the island. This has thrown into relief the administration problem which would face Mauritius if it tried to federate with Reunion, which is politically possible, or even with Malagasy.
I have dwelt at some little length on the problems of Mauritius and I have done so with the utmost sympathy and deepest concern for an island which, despite all the rain, I learned to love within a matter of two or three days. It is an enchanted island not least for the warm hospitality, the almost literally overwhelming hospitality, of the people there and the exquisite charm of the children. They seem to derive their charms from so many different races and are the final answer to racialists who advocate apartheid. It is a very garden of children and it was a source of great delight to me.
Like others, I welcome this Bill, not because it solves the problems of Mauritius, but because it gives Mauritius a chance to start solving her own problems and making her own mistakes in her own way. So long as I have the privilege of remaining in this House, with hon. Members who sit on either side of the House, Mauritius will be certain of having advocates of aid and friendship for the island.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The number and warmth of the speeches made from both sides of the House this afternoon will demonstrate, I hope very clearly, to the people of Mauritius in what affection they are held by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Some of the speeches have expressed underlying anxieties. I do not think we could be considered true friends of Mauritius unless we expressed those anxieties. Part of the anxieties are as a result of the racial composition of Mauritius and others derive from her economic condition. We hope that these problems will lessen with the coming of independence, but we have certain doubts.
It is right to express anxiety about these dangers which could lie ahead for Mauritius as it moves to independence. Mauritius is one of the most multiracial societies in the world. This was said by the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. It was repeated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). One of the dangers of a multiracial society which has been illustrated in so many other parts of the world in and out of the Commonwealth is the particular stresses set up when racialism gets involved in politics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who was present earlier but who has had to leave the Chamber, asked the Secretary of State what was the composition of the Parliament in Mauritius after the 1967 General Election. The composition is, I believe, 39 in the Government and 23 in the Opposition. What is perhaps more significant is that the percentage of votes cast

was 54 per cent, for the Government and 43 per cent, for the Opposition. What is worrying is that these votes were cast on racial lines. This is always a potential danger for the future. As has been said, now that the political battle is over, the races have settled down to their usual friendly relations in Mauritius, and we hope this racial division will not occur again.

Mr. George Thomson: Just to prevent any misunderstanding on either side of the House about the balance of parties in the Mauritian Assembly, my figures are different from those given by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the correct figures are 43 and 27.

Mr. Wall: I thank the Secretary of State for that correction. Obviously his figures are more likely to be correct than mine. I think that he will agree, however, with the point I made, that the percentages of votes were not, as often happens in Britain and in other countries, clearly represented in the number of seats gained by the two parties and that there was to some extent a racial division.
The fact that race relations in Mauritius have been so good is due largely to the personality of the Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, to whom so many tributes have been paid today. He is a man who has always set a splendid example of moderation and friendliness. I do not think that a Conservative could pay a higher tribute to a leader of a Labour Party. He is a friend of longstanding, and Mauritius and her people owe him very much indeed.
I want also to join in the tribute which has been paid from both sides to his representative in this country, Dr. Tee-lock and his charming wife. We are very glad indeed to learn that he has now recovered from his very serious illness and we hope that he will be with us for a long time representing his country as a sovereign independent member of the Commonwealth.
Returning to the racial composition of Mauritius, it must be borne in mind that these strains could be increased by independence. This is why we on this side attach great importance to the minority safeguards which are laid down in Annex E of the White Paper published after the 1965 Constitutional Conference, Cmnd. 2797.
I would like here to pay tribute to the oldest and, excepting the British, the smallest community in Mauritius. I refer to the Franco-Mauritian section of the population. They showed great wisdom in sinking their identity in the general population. They are not represented in any way politically as a separate section or as a racial section of the population. They come under the heading of general population. They have done much for their country in the past. Even though they are very small in numbers, I believe that they have a very important part to play, both politically and certainly economically in the future of the Island and of her people. Here I think that I would share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) rather than the views of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr).
As has been said, Mauritius can set an excellent example to the Commonwealth and to the world in harmonious race relations. This will be much easier provided that all of her people of all races can have a reasonable standard of living, because with a low standard of living racial tensions tend to increase. I therefore think, as has been said in so many speeches this afternoon, that the basic problem of Mauritius is economic.
Mauritius has an increasing population, as the Secretary of State said. It has doubled in the last 25 years. This population is naturally demanding increasing standards that are common in the world today. On the other side of the ledger, the islands is dependent virtually wholly on sugar. Sugar represents 98 per cent, of the value of the whole of her export trade. This obviously renders her economy pretty perilous in the future should anything go wrong with the price of sugar.
Getting down to some concrete questions about economic facts in Mauritius, she received for the first time this year budget support from the British Government of, I believe, £2·8 million in all. I understand that the reason for the budget deficit was threefold. The first reason was that the world sugar price has decreased. As has been pointed out, 38 per cent, of Mauritian sugar is sold at world prices—I think £24 a long ton now —and only the balance—admittedly the majority, but not the total crop—under

the provisions of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. As world prices have decreased, so has Mauritius's receipts. I would add that I hope that the Government of Mauritius will not try to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I know that there was anxiety about the additional 5 per cent, capital tax recently imposed on the sugar industry. Obviously it is fair to do this up to a point, but it is not wise, as I hope that we have learned in this country, to over-tax industry. The wrong economic results are produced if this is done and the whole country suffers.
The second reason seems to me to be the continuation of the rice subsidy for quite a long period. Will that subsidy continue or has it now ended?
The third reason was that in 1966 –67 no less than £½million was spent on relief works. This was probably necessary, and I do not question it. What I am asking the Minister of State is: is this rather large sum for relief works likely to continue into the future when Mauritius becomes independent and therefore largely responsible for her own economic development?
The Secretary of State has said that early next year there will be further financial discussions, presumably on budgetary support for 1968–69. I imagine that he can confirm that these will be held before independence, which is fixed for March? I take it the talks will take place before Mauritius actually becomes independent.
Quite apart from budgetary support, there is the whole question of development support, on which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) made important points. He said that tourism must be developed. I understand that Mauritius is now the only stop on the Southern Indian Ocean air route from the Continent of Africa to the Continent of Australia. Therefore, if she has good hotel accommodation and all the other things that go with a developed tourist industry, she should be able to attract quite a large number of visitors, quite apart from a fair number of charter flights now going to Mauritius from both Britain and France.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the future of the fishing industry. Mauritius has had, I think, some rather unfortunate experiences in the past over fishing. It has started off fairly satisfactorily and then


something has gone wrong. The Japanese are now forming a consortium with the Mauritians. I hope that this will have real success. Incidentally, I hope that they will also order their ships in this country and make use of the expertise that we have so well developed in ports such as Hull and Grimsby. What is obviously needed is a canning industry to preserve the fish caught by Mauritians so that this can be turned into an export industry.
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to confirm that our development aid as well as our budgetary aid will continue. I presume that Mauritius will receive what has been colloquially called a golden handshake on independence, and I hope that this will not be less than countries of comparable size say—Botswana, Lesotho, or whatever it may be—received, in spite of the unfortunate economic conditions prevailing in this country today.
Mauritius has also received foreign aid in the past—from France, Israel and West Germany—largely for cultural purposes. We hope that this will become development aid once Mauritius becomes independent. However, I hope that the Mauritian Government will not count on this too much, because experience has shown that when a country is a colony it receives quite a lot of money in aid, quite rightly, from the mother country and it expects that when it becomes independent it will receive further help all round. We know that overseas aid is becoming more and more difficult to extract from taxpayers, be it in this country, in the United States, in Western Germany, or elsewhere. Therefore, I do not think that Mauritius should rely too much on this expectation.
I turn rapidly to the subject of defence. I am pleased to see that there is provision for a defence agreement to be signed after independence, which illustrates that no pressure was put on by either partner. I believe that Mauritius is in an extremely important strategic position in the Indian Ocean. H.M.S. "Mauritius" at the moment is a vitally important communications centre for the Royal Navy and for the Royal Air Force. The rights of Britain to maintain H.M.S. "Mauritius ", and certainly staging rights

over Plaisance Airfield, are referred to in the White Paper, paragraph 23. The Secretary of State has already confirmed that these will continue as between two equals. If this agreement is made between two equals, it helps the defence of Mauritius as much as it helps the defence of Britain or of the Commonwealth. It is an agreement made between two equals, so I cannot really agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central.

Dr. David Kerr: I have in mind that, although Mauritius and Britain may be politically equal after independence, it will be a long time before they are economically equal.

Mr. Wall: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will have in mind also that Mauritius will not be able to defend herself for many years, and I am sure that he would not want her to waste money setting up her own navy or armed forces. There is, therefore, mutual benefit to both countries in a defence agreement. Mauritius may be much more important now that we are not going ahead with airstrips on Aldabra. As far as mutual defence is concerned, one wonders where the defence forces are coming from once we have quit Aden and Singapore. The nearest British territory to Mauritius is a very long way away. However, I shall not labour that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) spoke about the problems of internal security, a matter which causes a little concern. Obviously, there should be discussions and agreement about it, but I think that the Minister of State will agree that the position must be made clear before independence. These things can be dangerous if both sides—I mean not only Governments but the people of both countries—are not absolutely clear on the commitments.
Now, the question of citizenship. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East asked a lot of questions on citizenship, and I imagine that most of them are more suitable for the Committee stage and are not susceptible of immediate answer now. I find the position most complicated for a non-lawyer to understand, so I shall not go into it in detail. I have but two points to put.
First, it seems to me that almost everyone becomes a Mauritian citizen after


independence under Clause 3(5). As the Secretary of State said, there are some exceptions under Clause 3(1), and I understand that these people are to be allowed dual nationality. In the past, people in these categories have sometimes been given the option of either British citizenship or the nationality of the newly independent country. The option was generally given when the Government of the new State concerned said that its citizens were not to have dual nationality. I think that this rather forced this country's hand and we had to say, in effect, "All right; you can have our citizenship if you want it".
I imagine that the Mauritius Government do not intend to enact this form of legislation and they will allow certain of their citizens to have dual nationality. I hope that this matter will be gone into carefully and spelt out in Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said, it causes severe anxiety to certain people. Admittedly, their number is small, but the House should recognise the question as an important one calling for careful discussion.
My other question on citizenship concerns non-residents, those Mauritians who are no longer permanently resident on the island. There are not many, but the number is not negligible. Some have come to live in this country. In their case, I imagine that they can have British nationality under the British Nationality Act, 1964. Some have gone to live in France, some have gone to live in various parts of Africa. Will they be given the option of citizenship, Mauritian or British, or will they be given dual citizenship? This is a matter of importance. I emphasise that I am referring specically to people no longer resident on the island. People whose families have been British su0bjects for generations. Can they maintain that link either by having British citizenship or by having dual nationality?
Some of these people have a further problem. Some have had their passports renewed abroad and certain British Embassies have given them a passport issued "on behalf of the Government of Mauritius". Will that passport be maintained, or will it have to be exchanged for a Mauritian passport or, alternatively, a

British passport? Others, perhaps because of clerical error or for some other reason —I do not know—have been given a full British passport on applying to a British Embassy abroad. I imagine that in these cases they will be able to keep it?
Hon. Members on both sides have agreed that the problem of Mauritius is basically economic, an economic problem intensified by the growth of population, the so-called population explosion which is referred to so often. The economic position of Mauritius is the more precarious, as we all know, because it has a virtually one-shot economy based on sugar. No one can control the price of sugar, although, as hon. Members have said, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement does a great deal in that direction, and is, on that account, vital for the island.
There is, therefore, a precarious future for any country which depends as does Mauritius wholly on one crop, if the price fluctuates at all drastically. On the other hand, Mauritius has certain clear advantages. She has a strong two-party system which has stood the test of time and the test of pretty severe parliamentary political battles. She has an able and respected Prime Minister. I pay my tribute, also, to Mr. Gaetan Duval, the Leader of the Opposition, and, because he has been Leader of the Opposition for only a few years, to his predecessor Mr. Jules Koenig, the man who really built up the present opposition parties. The island has, moreover, the advantage of a Prime Minister who is very well known not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth. I think that Dr. Ramgoolam is probably better known in other Commonwealth countries than the Prime Minister of any of the other countries of the new Commonwealth. She has the further advantage of a very well organised and directed sugar industry.
In sum, the island's needs are understanding and help from this country, above all, continued economic help and the knowledge that she will have this economic help some years ahead. Mauritius must be able to plan her development programme over a period of years.
Mauritius wants independence. Many of us, I think, believe in the back of our minds that it might have been safer for


her to remain associated with this country, perhaps in some such associated status such as is found in the West Indian islands. We must all however salute the courage of the Mauritius Government in taking the risks inherent in going for independence. They want full independence, and the Government have been supported by the people. We shall do all we can to make their independence a success.
In conclusion, I express my personal good wishes as one who knows Mauritius and counts both die Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as friends of long standing. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have made perfectly clear today that they appreciate the problems lying ahead for Mauritius, and they have made clear, also, that they intend to do their best to see that Mauritius can proceed into independence with a happy and prosperous future for all her people.

7.17 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): It has been my privilege in the post-war years to be present at every independence debate which has taken place. Sometimes, I have had the further privilege of catching Mr. Speaker's eye. Sometimes, I have listened to right hon. and hon. Members who knew the countries concerned so much better than I. But I may fairly say that I have never heard an independence debate in which there has been greater goodwill expressed or a more constructive awareness of the problems concerned. The House has recognised today that we are not shaking off responsibility but are beginning a new era in our relationships with the people of Mauritius.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered a wide field, and it was clear that he spoke for both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) who opened for the Opposition, made—I hope that he will not be embarrassed by a kind word from me—an excellent and constructive contribution to our debate—we have had such contributions from both sides today—and, in the course of it, he addressed many questions to me. It has been manifest throughout that hon. Members with great knowledge of Mauritius are worried by

the rapid growth of population there. It is interesting that two of my hon. Friends who spoke, the Members for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), are doctors of medicine. The world is in debt to doctors of medicine who have made—not personally, of course—a greater contribution to the population explosion, if I may put it in that way, than anyone else. Medicine, by conquering malaria, has, in a decade, increased the population of Asia and Africa on an enormous scale. When I was in India just a week ago I learned that its population is increasing at the rate of 1 million a month. That means mouths to be fed, personalities to be fostered, minds to be educated, and jobs to be found. Right hon. and hon. Members are right to draw to our attention that the roblem of population is a major one facing the new Administration that will take over in Mauritius. But they will not take over without help and advice in plenty. There has been plenty of advice tonight from both sides of the House.
I have been asked a number of questions, in which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East took the lead, and I shall try to do justice to them. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) also asked many questions when he wound up for the Opposition. One question concerned help as Mauritius becomes independent. As with other newly independent members of the Commonwealth, we envisage a continuing flow of capital aid and technical assistance to Mauritius, the form of which will be subject to minor adjustment to take account of the island's independent status. Aid for the immediate post-independence period will be discussed in the next few months, and this will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. The budgetary support is not, £2·8 million, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice believed. It is only £1·3 million this year.
We accept that difficult problems face the Administration, and that economic diversification will demand a major economic and social effort on their part. One Member said—I think that it may have been my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths)—that it will take 40 years to diversify the


economy. Even if it takes 100 years, one must begin somewhere, and the longer die delay in beginning, the longer the attainment of the target will take.
In 1967 –68 Her Majesty's Government are contributing 70 per cent, of the total public sector investment in Mauritius. Our aid is concentrated on those projects which will increase production opportunities, and thus employment, particularly the tea industry, the agricultural development of Rodrigues, the fishing industry and other industries which we help through the Development Bank. Speaking from memory—but it is not very long since the knowledge came to me, I think that £113,000 is being invested in the fishing industry.
On the question of defence, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the draft of the defence agreement is in harmony with the proposals already known to the House. The proposed agreement has been sent to Mauritius and we await their comments. Early next month a small official team will visit Mauritius and will continue discussion on the defence programme.
Considerable anxiety was expressed about immigration and nationality. I shall answer the hon. Member for Haltamprice first. The question of Franco-Mauritians, people who have left Mauritius —

Mr. Wall: I mentioned non-residents, but I did not specify their race. My question would apply to all races.

Mr. Thomas: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Those who have left Mauritius would still be entitled to citizenship of Mauritius under the proposed constitution if they were born there. If they have gone to live in a foreign country and no longer have anything to do with Mauritius, they will be entitled to citizenship of Mauritius if that is where they were born, but they will have no claim on us if they are not living here.
Let us suppose that they go to live in China, if we might choose an unlikely destination. They might be there for 20 years. Because they were born in Mauritius, why should they be entitled to have a passport to come to the United Kingdom? After all, entitlement to British citizenship is not a prize that we

give away lightly. It is something to be valued.
I hope to explain to the satisfaction of the House who will be entitled to British citizenship and who will not. Whilst the Bill—[Interruption] I will find it. I have discovered that when the House is in a mood like this time can be taken. I want to do justice to the point, and unless I find a copy of the Bill I will not. The constitution will in general follow proposals set out in the 1965 Report. The Bill sets out in detail the categories of persons who will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, despite becoming citizens of Mauritius on its attainment of independence.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, were quite right in saying that it looks as if dual nationality will be acceptable in this case. The constitution will provide for certain categories of persons automatically to become citizens of Mauritius on independence if they were born there or their fathers were born there. Local citizenship law in Mauritius will, however, elaborate the provisions of the independence constitution, in particular providing for the manner in which applications for registration under the provisions of the constitution can be made.
It may be that those who have obtained naturalisation or registration in Mauritius will be automatically counted as citizens of Mauritius, but it may be that they will still have to apply. That is not yet decided. I therefore cannot give a clear definite statement as to whether this will take place, but I can say that the number of people who will be affected, even if they have to claim registration and are not automatically citizens of Mauritius, and who will be able to have entry to this country which is not open to them now because, under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, they hold passports issued by Mauritius and are, therefore, not free to enter Britain except within the terms of the Act, is no more than about 2,000. Perhaps it is wiser for me not to go into the details of that because negotiations are still going on.

Mr. Mac Arthur: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate the question of citizenship a little? I understand him to say, in


effect, that, under Clause 3, someone whose family has lived in Mauritius for two generations may have dual nationality but that someone whose family has lived in the island for three generations or more will be denied that nationality. My point was that it is those who have lived there a large number of generations who have often been of greater service to the Crown and to Mauritius than those who have arrived more recently.

Mr. Thomas: It may well be that those whose families have been there a long time will be automatically entitled to Mauritian citizenship. Already, in another part of the world, we have a difficulty in which people who have never seen these shores, who have no more affection for us than the Mace has, are fully entitled to British passports to come here. I do not believe that either side of the House is anxious to increase the number of people who come under that heading.
Clause 3(5) is simply to ensure that, while a connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies, such as specified in subsection (1), should be a ground for saving a person from the loss of United Kingdom citizenship on acquisition of Mauritian citizenship, Mauritius itself should not be included in the United Kingdom and Colonies for this purpose. People whose connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies derives solely from Mauritius ought to be citizens of Mauritius and not of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That, I believe, is in accordance with what the House would wish.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice was good enough to say that, in Committee, we will have an opportunity of going into this matter in greater detail and I take that as a very welcome statement from him—welcome at least tonight.

Mr. Braine: With the greatest respect to the Minister of State, I would not wish my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to let the hon. Gentleman off the hook. There is a vital principle here. All persons, including the people my hon. Friend has in mind, who were born in Mauritius, will automatically be Mauritian citizens and will cease to be United Kingdom citizens.

What we are concerned about is that, because no decision has yet been taken as to whether there shall be automatic citizenship for those naturalised in Mauritius or merely a right of registration, some might elect not to become Mauritian citizens. We want to know how many there will be, because it would be wrong in our view to give a preference to people like that who have come to Mauritius to make their homes over those who have lived there for generations.

Mr. Thomas: There are not more than 2,000 people under that heading. That is what the hon. Member for Haltemprice wanted to know. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to talk of 2,000 people under that heading when their legacy to us was 250,000 in East Africa who carry British passports who have never been here and many of whom cannot speak English, but who are entitled to come here under the independence constitution negotiated by the last Government. We have to realise that, if hon. Members want to stop these people coming here, then, in Committee, they must put down an Amendment to declare them stateless. We cannot make Mauritius take them if she does not want to. All we can do is take away from them their United Kingdom passports, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has too much compassion in him to want to make 2,000 people stateless, not having a claim on any Government in the world. Of course, it is an involved question.

Mr. Braine: hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. I would be the last to suggest that any innocent human being should be stateless, but the question can easily be resolved if we know whether, under the constitution, there will be automatic registration. If that were so, the position would be covered. I realise that it may be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to say anything about it tonight, but my sole purpose in raising the issue is to get clarification not only for the House but for the individuals concerned.

Mr. Thomas: I deeply appreciate that, and I hope that, by the time we reach the Committee stage, I shall be in a position to know whether there has been agreement on this question. I am not in a position tonight, as the hon.


Gentleman will understand, to be able to give him a categorical assurance. I think that it may well turn out to be the way we hope but I cannot give him an assurance until agreement is firm and definite.
Many other questions have been raised and I will communicate with hon. Members on any matter I have not answered. Suffice it for me to say now that I esteem it a great privilege to be linked with this independence debate. It so happens that, as the House knows, I love being at the Commonwealth Office and I recommend it as a job to any ambitious hon. Member on this side of the House. After that time, I recommend it to anyone.
It is a great Department because it is the Department that touches the lives of people right across the Commonwealth, and tonight, if the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, as I trust it will, we shall again be touching the lives of many people to whom the House of Commons is a sacred and honoured name. I hope that the House will, without further delay, give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee Tomorrow.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Schedule 2.

(PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS.)

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I beg to move, in page 15, line 33, at end insert:

Provision affecting teachers who continue or resume full-time teaching

7. Provision for paying allowances, until such date and subject to such conditions as may be determined, to or in respect of teachers who continue or resume full-time teaching and have reached the age of 65 years.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), who seemed to have a conception of time such as is said to occur in the West Coast of

Scotland, I hope that I shall not fall into the same error, because even if the House is indulgent, the length of time which it takes for important things should not be unduly extended. As the Under-Secretary knows, this is an important point coming at the end of a Bill welcomed by both sides of the House and by the teachers of Scotland.

This is not an easy subject; if it had been, it would have been settled many years ago. When we were discussing this subject in Committee, I made the point, quite fairly, that the Educational Institute for Scotland had asked me some years ago whether I could achieve the purpose of full pay and pension for it, because it believed that it was important if it was to get enough teachers to meet what was already then a critical teacher shortage in Scotland. I frankly admitted to the Committee, as I now admit to the House, that I failed to fulfil that request for the Institute.

This does not mean that this is not something important to teachers. It does not mean that they have in any way reduced their desire for this change, for in the last three years the situation has gone from being critical to being very serious. As we all know, we are faced with the problem of the raising of the school leaving age in three or four years and with the almost complete certainty of a shortage of more than 6,000 teachers. Therefore, anything which the House does today, if it can provide more teachers for a hard-pressed service, should not be lightly decided.

In Committee the Minister answered our argument and we are perfectly prepared to concede to him that this is not an easy matter to decide, but it is a subject about which every hon. Member on his side of the House pressed very fiercely a few years ago, when I was considerably attacked and abused by them for not achieving that purpose. The hon. Gentleman is now in that position and has been in it for a considerable time. Although they were unwilling to support me in the Division in Committtee, it was the unanimous view of hon. Members that this was the right action to take at this moment.

7.45 p.m.

We have tried to draft the Amendment as nearly as possible to meeting every argument advanced by the hon.


Gentleman in Committee. I can briefly summarise our attempt to do so. In the first line of the Amendment we refer to "until such date". We are perfectly aware that providing additional pay and pension is difficult if it conflicts with other services within the Civil Service who might demand the same thing, and we realise that this may be done for only a short number of years during the acute stage.

We then use the words:
 and subject to such conditions as may be determined ".
We give the Secretary of State the widest possible discretion to bring in this provision in whatever way seems to him to be necessary for not only the time, but the conditions which he has to meet. We also use the words:
 who continue or resume full-time teaching
which meets the point that there may be teachers who would resign in order to come back and so take advantage of full pay and pension. We have also said:
 and have reached the age of 65 years.
We have met every serious objection which the hon. Gentleman raised when he answered our proposition in Committee and we have done it simply and deliberately because we believe that in the conditions now existing, with an already acute shortage and with the raising of the school-leaving age only three or four years ahead, it is absolutely obvious to every teacher in Scotland that there is a critical situation and that an even more critical situation will exist. It is the duty of the Government, therefore, to take such action as is necessary to increase the number of teachers by whatever the figure may be— it may be only 200, 400, or more—in whatever way possible if the raising of the school-leaving age is to be successful and is not to throw an appalling burden on the teachers who have to operate it.

No one in Opposition can guarantee that the drafting of the Amendment is correct. All I can say is that we have done our best to provide words which seem to us to meet every objection to the Amendment which we moved in Committee. I regard the Amendment as a test of the Government's sincerity in their attempt to get enough teachers at a critical period, and I profoundly hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): I welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has moved the Amendment. I am not clear about one aspect, but that is a matter of detail of wording which can be left. I appreciate his purpose, which is in keeping with what has been my own attitude since 1958, when, as he knows, the Knox Committee reported on the supply of teachers.
That Committee regarded this suggestion as so important that it made an interim report and a deputation visited the then Secretary of State to impress upon him—using the form of words which the right hon. Gentleman has just used—that it was a test of the sincerity of the then Government's anxiety to add to the number of teachers then necessary, a number which has continued to grow. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman indicated the difficulties facing him. I am satisfied that my hon. and right hon. Friends have no doubt tried in the present circumstances, but for the very same reasons as prevailed previously— Treasury reasons—they are finding difficulties. In order to sustain this case one has only to refer to the first Report of the Departmental Committee on the Supply of Teachers of Mathematics and Science, about 1955 or 1956. Paragraphs 59 and 60 refer to this idea of having teachers return to teaching.
I want to make it clear that the teachers' position is not of interest to me so much as the position of the children who will be left without teachers or with part-time education. As my hon. Friend knows, children in the City of Glasgow are having only half-day instruction—this in the mid-1960s, when the school-leaving age is shortly to rise.
That decision is not of our making, but it is one that we have indicated we will try to implement. It was a decision of the political party to which my hon. Friend and I belong. There are practical difficulties but, in viewing the present shortage, particularly in the secondary schools, the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970 and the Brunton Report, which asked for a different type of teacher by the 1970s to deal with this situation, it is important that, even at this late stage, my hon. Friend should be asked again whether he can give any further indication of what progress or


consultations, if any, there have been. Can he give some assurance that the proposal to pay salary plus pension to teachers who desire to return has been investigated? Note, too, that by the terms of the Amendment it is from age 65 and not as was formerly suggested, from age 60.
There are two or three singular differences. For example, die teacher who goes directly into the Armed Forces and; serves a period of 12, 15 or 20 years can come from the Forces with a pension and then enter teaching. If he were to leave leaching and go to any other job, he would have his pension plus salary for that job.

Mr. John Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the teacher could enter into teaching in a privately-ran school and still maintain his pension?

Mr.Hannan: Yes. He can leave leaching in the public service and go into a private school, or undertake private tuition and keep his pension. He can enter into a job in security. He can become the janitor in the same school at which he taught and he would then receive his pension and janitor's pay.
My hon. Friend and his colleagues are always perturbed about certain features of life among young people, such as vandalism and misbehaviour. I do not want no exaggerate this, but it is precisely at the ages of from 13 to 18 that the largest lumber of such incidents occur. Statistics prove this. This calls for the services of experienced men to deal with such pupils, and this is one more reason for trying to avoid being penny wise and pound foolish. These men would be invaluable.
Can we hope for a higher percentage of graduates entering teaching than we are getting at present? The current figure is about 50 per cent, or 52 per cent. I do not know whether it is possible to get any more. It is true that men are now allowed to take the three-year college course to become teachers, but not in the senior secondary schools, the very places where there are 15 and 16-year olds. None of us, in normal circumstances, would urge the terms of this Amendment upon my hon. Friend, and he knows that. It is the extraordinary circumstance, not only of the "bulge", but that boys and

girls are voluntarily remaining at school which makes this suggestion helpful.
One example comes readily to mind. In the emergency of war the nation found it possible to re-employ retired policemen. They were given certain duties and received pension and pay. What is possible in war ought to be possible in peace. Here is a war of interest in order to try to cater for young people in the schools at the most impressionable years of their life. I feel that we have persuaded my hon. Friend. Can we urge him to go back and try once more?
Let me be perfectly honest with the right hon. Gentleman. There would be no use him trying to pull my leg or twit me, challenging me to support his Amendment. We are old in the service of this House, and we know how these things work. I would not propose to vote with him in the Lobby if he was to divide the House tonight. This is an opportunity for the House to express itself in a sincere fashion. I have been frank and I hope that my remarks will be accepted in the spirit in which they were made. I feel very keenly about this and, I care not from which side of the House it comes, the quality and the purpose of this Amendment is worth while.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Brewis: We on this side of the House are very pleased to have the support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). Any teachers who read the report of the debate will see at once the great sincerity with which he put forward his argument.
The problem is quite simple. We are desperately short of teachers. According to the last figures which I saw, we are employing just under 3,000 uncertificated teachers who are to leave the schools shortly. The school-leaving age is to be raised fairly soon. We must get as many teachers as we can. An extra two or three hundred would be worth having.
A number of teachers approaching retirement age who have done very good service in teaching went into the profession in the late 1920s or early 1930s because it was difficult to get a job in other industries during the depression. There was, therefore, a particularly big intake of graduates in the teaching profession in the early 1930s. Those are the people whom we shall lose. This is


yet another reason why this is an opportune time to consider this proposal.
Most teachers retire between the ages of 60 and 65. If we could keep them on to 65, many might stay on a year or two more if they had this sweetener of being able to serve the extra years on full pay and pension. It is said that a principle is involved. If that is so, it was breached, as the hon. Member for Maryhill said, during the war in the case of the police. If it be a principle, it seems to me extraordinary that a teacher should be able to retire from the public education service and go into private education or tutoring without losing his pension.
It has also been said that there are shortages in other branches of the public services like the Armed Forces and the fire service. Old men of over 65 are not likely to be of much use in those cases, but they can be extremely useful in the teaching profession. This is yet another reason why we should adopt this proposal.
The Amendment would operate for only a limited period—until the teacher shortage had been righted. We want young, well qualified teachers in the profession, and what we suggest is a stop gap which is badly needed. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Doig: This is one of those Amendments which appear to be reasonable in isolation, but there can be no doubt that if it were agreed, even for a limited period, that teachers who carried on in the profession should receive their pension and full salary, every teacher, on reaching pension age, would automatically retire and would then decide to work on. In these circumstances, pensions and salaries would be paid to all teachers over 65. Once that happened, how long would it be before policemen put forward the same argument? It would be said, "There is a temporary shortage of policemen. It is necessary that we should have more policemen". How long would it be before they received, not only their pension, but full pay if they continued in the police service? The same would be said of architects, surveyors, lawyers and sanitary inspectors. The argument would apply to all professional people employed

by local authorities who were in short supply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that there are children in Glasgow schools who are receiving only half a day's instruction. I agree that this is a terrible state of affairs. But there could be trouble at the other end of the scale. This has arisen in my constituency. Children are being taught by teachers of nearly 80 years of age who are well past their best. One sometimes wonders whether it is best that children should receive half a day's education for a very short part of their school lives or should be taught all day by very elderly teachers, sometimes for a good few years, who are well past their best.

Mr. Noble: No one is seriously suggesting—and the hon. Gentleman must know this—that an education authority should keep on beyond the age of 65 people who are not fitted to teach.

Mr. Doig: It is very difficult, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, when the onus is put on the director of education or the education authority, to say to someone who has been a teacher for a number of years, "I am sorry, but you are past your best and you will have to retire". It is a very difficult decision to take and usually it is taken only after substantial complaints have been made by the parents.
We are told that the circumstances are extraordinary. I agree. It is proposed that the Amendment should operate for only a temporary period. But once it is applied, and once it is extended to other parts of the public service, as it assuredly would be, how long will it be before we are able to repeal it? I do not know how many hon. Members have had the job of taking something away from people when they have been used to having it. It is one of the hardest things in the world to do, and I imagine that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) knows it probably better than anyone else.
I suggest that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should stick to his guns, because if the Amendment is accepted, not only will professional people who are in short supply, but joiners, bricklayers, bus drivers and everyone else will demand to receive their pension


as well as their full wages if they return to work. They will not sit back and see the difference in standard of living between people who are better off and themselves grow wider. If it were implemented, this would be one of the most costly proposals ever put forward. The advantage which would accrue from it would be very small compared with its cost. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should stick to what he said in Committee and resist the Amendment.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has thrown a fair amount of cold water on a very constructive attempt to find a solution to this problem which would provide the teachers that we shall want in the near future. We have looked upon this very much as an ad hoc decision. I know that the word "crisis" is not accepted, but the situation will not be far from crisis point by 1970.
It is wrong of the hon. Member for Dundee, West to put forward comparisons which do not stand up. We all know that the police would not contemplate allowing officers to retire at 65, which is in any case past the time when most of them retire, and then re-employing them because we must have fit, active men in the police force. That goes for bus drivers and even local government officers. That is not a fair comparison when we are dealing with an exceptional case. The figures vary as to what the result of this Amendment might be. We talked in Committee of the possibility of 200 or 400 teachers returning to the profession. It could be more. We know that a large number of teachers retire each year. The number returning to the profession might reach 1,000.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) in the Committee explained in detail the position of those who might retire at 62 or 63, and in view of what was said there by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, this Amendment stipulating 65 does seem to me a very wise solution.
In his very sincere remarks the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) talked of the position of the children. It is the position of the children that we must consider first and foremost, and if in any way we can help to

provide the teachers for the children of all ages we shall be doing something constructive and something which the people of Scotland will accept and welcome, as would also those other people who might be in these circumstances comparable with the teachers, people like policemen and bus drivers; they also will accept that education is a priority and a special case.
I felt that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) gave a glimmer of hope when he said in Committee:
 It has been considered by the present Government since 1964. It is part of the review of public service pensions which is part of a review of the National Insurance Scheme. The Government have it very much in mind, as clearly they must, in relation to the raising of the school leaving age in 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 28th November, 1967; c. 41.]
I think that that indicates that the Government are showing sympathy with what hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House are suggesting.
The point which we put to the hon. Gentleman tonight is that time is not on his side, and so will he give an indication that at a later stage of this Bill he will have an Amendment made on the lines of this which we have suggested tonight, and, better still, announce to the teachers that this is his policy and that he hopes it will bring in the teachers we hope to have by 1970?

Mr. James Hamilton: I do not want to take up the time of the House or prolong what, having listened to the contributions so far, I think has been a very reasonable, sensible and responsible debate, but I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the Amendment which has been moved with the expressed determination to get the necessary teachers who are urgently required at the present time and who will be still more urgently required by the time we raise the school leaving age in 1970.
I would put forward this point of view. I would ask the House to consider, if we require teachers, as we do require them, and will require them, most certainly for technical subjects particularly, and we find at this moment in time that we cannot get the types of people we need in the profession, and for the very good reason, which has been constantly expressed by each and every one of us on both sides of the House, that, for one


thing, salaries are totally inadequate, then if the Treasury—and, after all, that will be the deciding factor—has money to spare, that that money should be used to encourage some of the people who are moving into industry in preference to coming into the teaching profession to enter the teaching profession instead.

8.15 p.m.

It could be said that I have a pecuniary interest, because my own daughter is moving into the teaching profession. I myself, before I became a Member of Parliament, was very much involved in industry.

I know, because of my local government connections, the difficulties which are encountered by education authorities in getting the teachers, particularly for secondary schools. As for the primary schools, when I put a Question to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I was assured that, because of the extra places which had been made available in the training colleges, and also because we are going to have males being allowed to come via the training colleges to teach in primary schools, by 1970 we expect to have sufficient primary teachers. If that is the case, and we have to accept it as such, then the point I would make is that they are required for the secondary schools.

Surely the House must agree with the expression of opinion which I humbly put to them, that if we agree to the Opposition's suggestion, will we at the end of the day get 200 teachers? I have a great measure of sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). He tells us, and quite correctly, that there is a very serious shortage of architects. It is a fact. There is also a very serious shortage of skilled craftsmen. That is also a fact. There is also, of course, a very serious shortage of policemen. Nevertheless, even bearing all this in mind, that does not make a case for the Government to oppose the point of view put forward in this Amendment by the Opposition. But I would expect them to be equally fair to us, when they make an honest appreciation of the situation, and I would say to them that I sincerely believe that at the end of the day we will not get the 200 teachers they talk about.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said is true, that we have in our schools at present many teachers who are at 70 years of age. I know some who are at 75 years of age. I ask—and with all deference, if only because we have some Members of this House who are at that age—is a person at 75 tolerant and at the same time on equal terms with the children, and, most important, is that person with modern trends in education?

I ask my hon. Friend, if it is humanly possible, and if he in his wisdom believes that we shall get the 200 teachers, by all means to agree to the suggestion in the Amendment, but if he is going to tell us, what he has told us before, that the Treasury has got money to spend, I would suggest to him that he tries to encourage youngsters into the profession, because if he will not give them salaries commensurate with their responsibilities in coming into the profession, obviously they will not come in, but they will go into industry, and then there will be no possible chance at all of their coming into the teaching profession. I would ask my hon. Friend, when he replies, to take cognisance of this point of view and let the House know what the Government's intentions are.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). I have always very strongly felt this to be a move that we should make, and I urged it upon the Secretary of State of the day when the Conservatives were in office. It seems to me that if the nation wants teachers and wants to reduce the size of classes and wants efficiency in the educational world then it must pay for it and do everything possible to get the teachers to meet the situation.
As I understand it, the Educational Institute of Scotland puts this matter of full pay and pension as a top priority as a means of getting more teachers. Why do not the Government accept this? Will they explain to me what other methods they intend to use to obtain teachers? I have never heard an answer to that question.
On the general point, I have always opposed the theory that a person cannot


have full pay and a pension in any profession, whether he be a local government employee, a bricklayer, an architect, or anything else. The nation is in a parlous state, and we want all the resources that we can get. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will explain his philosophy in resisting this very sensible Amendment, which has the support of almost everyone in the educational world and every sensible person in Scotland. Why is he in such fear and trembling of the Treasury?

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs): I do not want to add very much to the debate, because I think that everything important has been said already. However, I want to align myself with my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of the idea behind:he Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has told us that it cannot be done on financial grounds, that if it is done to attract more people to remain active in the teaching profession, it will have to be done in other cases, and that it is financially impossible. However, I am not quite convinced that, if it is done in aspect of the teaching profession, it will be impossible to prevent an extension of the principle. A resolute Government able to explain the circumstances could do it. However, I am prepared to accept that it would be difficult and that it might well be that the floodgates would have to burst.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) said about the categories affected is correct, but where we get from that is that the public services as a whole are in great danger of being unable to function properly because they will not be supplied with the necessary staff.
The conclusion which I draw from that is one which takes me back to my early days as a keen fighter in the Labour Party. I will not attempt to remind my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite of the principles which used to be discussed in those days, but they are still there. A famous economist summed it up a little while ago in a phrase which I cannot quite remember but which referred to contrasting public squalor with private affluence. This is a serious and difficult situation. It looks to me

as if, except for a few sectors in the public sphere, we shall come into the private sphere. I am sorry about it.
Taking this one instance, one has watched the teaching profession, schools and the problems of staffing them for the last 20 years, and one has seen continual defeat. We now find that we simply have not done enough to staff the science and maths departments of schools, and we see the resulting position today. It will not be cured immediately, and science and maths are merely the first dramatic subjects to be affected. Unhappily, the same is happening in other departments of our schools, and it means a decline in standards in our schools.
Much against my desires, we have to accustom ourselves to the fact that, in the 1920s and 1930s when industry did not attract or want graduates, the teaching profession was staffed by an unusually high quality of people. Today, those people are not likely to be attracted into the teaching profession, and our children will suffer.
I am sorry to find myself convinced at last that this will happen. However, it is only one stage in a process which I have watched for a couple of decades. I regret the attitude of the Government to this case. The number of additional full-time teachers which we should get is probably pretty small. Nevertheless, they would be experienced teachers and an addition to the teaching staffs of our schools. Now, I am afraid, we have to give up all hope of this.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): It would be true to say that no arguments used today have not been deployed on Second Reading and Committee. As a result, the House will not expect to hear any originality of argument from me. What I have to say will not differ substantially from what I have said already at considerable length in Committee.
In moving the Amendment, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) in what was a very moderate speech, admitted that this was not an easy problem, otherwise it would have been solved years ago. That was one of the points which I made when we discussed the matter in Committee. There are considerable ramifications involved. His Amendment is certainly an attempt to


express in a rather more moderate form the arguments which were put up in Committee.
He said that he could not guarantee that the drafting of his Amendment was right, and I have to tell him that it is defective from a drafting point of view. Indeed, I am not even sure that its proposed position in the Bill is the correct one. However, I do not intend to ask the House to reject it simply because it is not an adequate Amendment in drafting terms.
Whether or not we have any Amendment to the Schedule will make no practical difference to what the Government can do about full pay and pensions. That will depend on Regulations under the Bill which will come once it is an Act of Parliament. As I pointed out in Committee, if the Government decided that they should give full pay and pensions, even to the over-sixties rather than the over-sixty-fives or on any other kind of basis, it would be open to us to do it under the Regulations. It is not necessary to have any provision in Schedule 2.
In Committee, I said that the matter is by no means closed. It is not a question consideration of which is finished for all time. But not having the Amendment in the Bill will not in any way prejudice anyone who feels that the Government should do this, whether in the original Regulations or perhaps rather later on.

8.30 p.m.

Having said all that, I must still point to the very considerable difficulties in this sphere. Although I did not in Committee, and do not now, say that I must resist this Amendment in principle, I keep being accused of turning it down because I am arguing that it is breaching some inalienable principle. I am not doing that. I prefer to look at this as a practical problem, but it is the practical difficulties involved in it which make it very difficult to see that we should be able to get an adequate solution.

Nor do I accept the argument—I do not know whether it is meant to be a flattering one or not—that I am convinced that this Amendment is a very sensible one, and it is only because I am under some sort of pressure not to give way on it that I am being so stubborn. I

genuinely believe, as I have said before, that there are considerable difficulties, and I am by no means convinced of the Tightness of taking a step of this sort, even if these difficulties were not present, as indeed they are.

The difficulties were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). The first was that it would be extremely difficult, having conceded the point here, to prevent pressure for concession on exactly the same point in other parts of the public service. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other public services where there are considerable shortages of staff. This does not apply only to the Government service, but also to local authority service where the same practice is in operation that full pay and pension is not payable.

Mr. Hannan: Mr. Hannan rose —

Mr. Millan: I will not give way. I should like to be allowed to develop this a little. I know that during the war the practice was breached in the case of the police. That is another example of a profession where there are considerable shortages, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are continually reminding us, especially in Glasgow. One could quote other public services where there are similar shortages of staff and where undoubtedly there will be pressures to extend any concession to teachers to those other public servants as well.
There is also the point that the implications for the National Insurance Scheme could be very substantial. Again, it is no use hon. Members saying that the situation is in no way 0analogous, because there are analogies that can be drawn between public servants' occupational pensions and the National Insurance Scheme, and many National Insurance retirement pensioners would be very ready to draw these analogies. As the House knows, the Government are considering the whole future of National Insurance and the question of occupational pensions, and within that review public servants' pensions will have to be considered.
I have already given the House the pledge that the kind of point that is being put in the Amendment is something which will be considered in the context of that review. But since the review is going on and the Government have not yet published any conclusions about it, it is


unreasonable to expect me to accept that we should make this very important change in one category of public servants only, namely the Scottish teachers.
A number of arguments were used this evening, about which I want to say a word. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) mentioned the numbers of children receiving part-time education. No one deplores that more than I do, but I do not believe that a proposal of this sort, to give full pay and pension, would make any substantial difference to that problem. The problem about part-time education in Glasgow and elsewhere— and the incidence tends to be exaggerated —is one of distribution of teachers, not of the total number.
As the House knows, the Government have made proposals for inducement payments to teachers. This is something which hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to do on a number of occasions, and I give them credit for that, but they were unsuccessful. However, we have now produced a more coherent and effective set of proposals for inducement payments to teachers in the areas of greatest teacher shortage. I hope that we shall be able to start making these payments, if the teachers' organisations and the employing authorities agree, by 1st April next year. That is the way so tackle that problem.
Concerning the general teacher shortage, I find it incredible that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) should take such a gloomy view following upon his study of what has been happening over the last two decades. If he looks at the figures, he will see that the number of teachers in Scottish schools today is immensely greater than it was two decades ago. The present number in the colleges of education is nearly double what it was only six or seven years ago.
In these circumstances, it seems extraordinary that one should talk in terms which suggest that we are attracting no one to the teaching profession. Nothing could be further from the truth. The latest change in teacher recruitment introduced by the Government, namely, the admission of men to the three-year courses at colleges of education for primary teaching, which started only a month or two ago, already shows signs

of being a considerable success, because no fewer than 300 young men have already entered these colleges for the course, which shows that despite the gloomy prognostications of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs, teaching is still, to many people, an attractive proposition.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I do not
think that I used the word "studied". I would not claim to have studied the process. I have observed it at a distance. I did not say that nobody was coming into the teaching profession. My hon. Friend is right on the question of numbers. Perhaps I did not make clear what I was saying. I was talking about secondary schools, to which we are unable to attract the teachers we need for the mathematics and science departments. The argument that I am putting is that although these are the two departments which are most in the public eye, the same thing is happening in other intellectual or non-technical sections of the secondary schools

Mr. Millan: If my hon. Friend assures me that he has not been studying the matter, I am willing to accept that assurance. But even what he has just said is not strictly accurate, because the number of graduates has not been decreasing, either. In fact, we expect that the number of graduates going to colleges of education during the next few years will show a substantial increase, in line with the increase in the university population generally.
There are particular difficulties about mathematics and science, although even here it is not by any means true that these subjects give the most difficulty in every school in every area of Scotland. There are many schools in which there are special difficulties in English, rather than in mathematics or science. But again this is part of a much wider problem which has nothing to do with recruitment to the schools. There are considerable problems in respect of mathematics and science graduates, for example, in the recruitment of these classes to industry, as well as to the schools. Therefore, to put all this at the door of some failure in the educational system is misplaced. It is a very much greater problem than that. What I do not see is the relevance of the proposal that we are discussing to this problem anyway,


and I am not sure that I have not been out of order for the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I do not
see the relevance of my hon. Friend's reply to my argument. I realise that there are difficulties about recruitment to industry. What I am saying is that the Government's policy for the schools has not succeeded in staffing them at the level which is needed. We need highly qualified staff in the science departments, to produce scientists for industry. It is a long, slow business. I do not think that what my hon. Friend has said in any way contradicts what I said. I was not talking about graduates, but about honours graduates.

Mr. Millan: All that my hon. Friend is saying is that we have a shortage of teachers. There is nothing between us on that. What I am not accepting is his analysis of the situation, and I am not accepting his proposed solution to it so far as it is contained in the Amendment, and perhaps I might now get back to it.
As I said earlier, there are no new points in the Amendment and no new points have been brought forward by hon. Members tonight. Admittedly, the Amendment narrows a little the kind of Amendment which we discussed in Committee, but it does not eliminate the serious objections which I have mentioned, and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. I cannot, of course, say what the numbers are likely to be. No one can estimate that—the only way would be to try this proposition—but all the estimates which I can make suggest that, on this proposal, the numbers of over-sixty-fives might be a good deal smaller than most hon. Gentlemen think.
We have recently introduced a more limited concession on abatement of pensions for teachers, which does not, incidentally, apply to other public service. I referred to this in Committee. There was a change in the salary of reference against which the calculations of abatement are made. The salary of reference now being used is the current salary, and not that on the date that the teacher retires.
These Regulations were laid only on 29th November and are retrospective to 1st July. We shall be able to see whether this limited concession, as I

admit it to be, will attract more teachers back into the schools. We should be able to judge this quite soon, I hope, but, in the meantime, for the reasons which I have given and repeating that this matter is constantly being considered, I have to advise the House to reject the Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthar: Yet again the Under-Secretary has invited us to reject the Amendment. He keeps saying that the Government are considering this matter. He has told us that repeatedly. I am not interested in the fact that they are considering it. What we are looking for is some action from the Government. We want to know what they will do, and the only sign of action which they give is to invite first the Committee and now the House to reject an Amendment which, from every point of view, makes complete sense in the present position in education.
Of course I accept that the Amendment may not be perfectly drafted or, strictly speaking, necessary, but the hon. Gentleman gives us no cause to believe that he seriously intends to do anything to meet this situation. It is, therefore, necessary for us to go on tabling Amendments and trying to improve the Bill so as to get the positive declaration from the Government which has so far been completely lacking.
The purpose of this Amendment is simply to ease the shortage of teachers— no more than that. My hon. Friends the Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and other hon. Members have made that abundantly clear. It is no use the Under-Secretary saying that the number of teachers is going up. Of course it is and we welcome that, but—I think that this was the point in the mind of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)—the number is not rising fast enough to keep pace with the demand for teachers for children attending school, particularly since, only three years from now, the number of children in secondary schools will rise sharply and the gap between the numbers of children and teachers will grow.
By 1973, the number of children in secondary schools will have risen by 34


per cent, but the number of qualified secondary teachers by only 23 per cent., so the position then will be substantially worse than today and rather worse than it will be in 1970.
My hon. Friends and I do not pretend that our Amendment solves the problem, but it is at least a help. It would provide a number of teachers—some hundreds, possibly—with the experience which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) wanted, the sort of teachers whom we will be desperately short of from 1970 –71 onwards, the men of experience who can teach particularly older children who will be staying at school, for whom teachers of long experience are particularly needed. It is there that the pressure will be greatest.
We have tabled the Amendment out of consideration not for the Department, for local education authorities or even for teachers, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries emphasised, for children. It is the children with whom we are concerned. It is they who will suffer if the education which they get from 1970 onwards is not adequate.
The hon. Gentleman's reply was disappointing in view of what he said in Committee. Then, he gave us some reason to hope. He told us that there were certainly considerable difficulties over our proposal. He went on to say that he would not claim that the difficulties were insuperable. And then, using some stirring words, he exclaimed that where there was a will there was a way. The way is here. I regret that the will is lacking.
The hon. Gentleman then paraded the old, familiar objections, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). But the fact that there are shortages elsewhere in the public service is no reason for saying that we cannot help to meet a shortage in the teaching profession, an area which is easily identifiable and which, it is known, will be facing a particularly serious position from 1970 onwards. I do not accept that to introduce this limited proposal for a limited period for a limited number of teachers would necessarily lead to an escalation involving all the other public services.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West suggested that local education authorities

would find themselves forced to employ all teachers over 65 who wished to stay on, but that is sheer nonsense. If a local authority has any strength of purpose it will not re-employ teachers if they are not good teachers. But at least this proposal would enable them to employ those teachers over 65 who can still contribute to the teaching of children.
We keep hearing about the practical difficulties. The practical difficulty I have in mind is the one which will confront education in Scotland from 1970—that is, that there will simply not be enough teachers. I am completely unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman's negative reply and my hon. Friends are bitterly disappointed by it. I have doubted the Government's capacity to meet the challenge of 1970—a doubt which I have expressed before—and, if any confirmation of that doubt were needed, the hon. Gentleman has provided it tonight.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (INCREASE)

8.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
The Local Government Act, 1966, requires the Order to be accompanied by an explanatory report. This report was laid at the same time as the Order and has been printed as House of Commons Paper No. 19.
Section 3 of the Act empowers my right hon. Friend to make an Order increasing the rate support grants, and any elements of the grants, if it appears to him that there has been an unforeseen increase in the level of prices, costs and remuneration and that the effect of the increase on the relevant expenditure of local authorities is substantial. There must, therefore, be two elements satisfied before the Minister can act.
To put the Order in perspective, it might be helpful if I refer to the new rate support grant system. Under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1966, this took effect from 1st April, 1967, and replaced, with modifications, the former general grants, rate deficiency grants and specific grants in aid of expenditure on school milk, meals and on the maintenance and improvement of roads other than principal roads. It introduced a grant, known as the domestic element, with a new purpose, that of making good to rating authorities a prescribed reduction of 5d. in the £ in the rates on domestic properties for 1967 –68 and l0d. in the £ for 1968 –69.
In determining the amount of rates support grant, the Minister first examines the estimates of relevant expenditure produced by the local authority associations and the Greater London Council, and there are consultations about them. The conclusion having been reached about the aggregate of the estimated relevant expenditure, the Minister next considers the aggregate of Exchequer revenue grants, other than housing subsidies which are outside the system.
The grant percentages used for the first Order were 54 per cent, for 1967 –68 and 55 per cent, for 1968 –69. The 1967 –68 figure was a little over 1 per cent, more than the corresponding percentage for the previous year under the old grant system. Having arrived at the aggregate amount of grant, the Minister next estimates what portion of it will be allocated to specific revenue grants, for example, for the police. The amount remaining after deducting the estimated amount of these specific grants is the aggregate amount of the rate support grant.
There are three elements in the rate support grants. They serve three purposes and are divided into three parts. First there is the needs element, which is about four-fifths of the total grant and which replaces general grant but covers a wider range of services, in particular school meals and milk and the maintenance and minor improvements of highways. The needs element is distributed to counties, county boroughs and London Boroughs on the basis of objective factors of which population is the key one.
Then there is a resouces element which replaces the old rate deficiency system of grants and, like them, is payable to local authorities of all types whose rateable resources per head of population are below the national average according to the shortfall in those resources. Thirdly, there is the domestic element, a new feature, which is payable to rating authorities in respect of the loss of rate income from relief to domestic properties at amounts in the pound prescribed by the Minister.
The Rate Support Grant Order, 1966, which we shall be modifying if the House approves this Order, came into force on 1st April. It fixed the grant at £1,254 million for 1967 –68 and £1,362 million for 1968 –69 on the basis of forecasts of relevant expenditure of £2,557 million and £2,726 million for the two years respectively. Increases in relevant expenditure which have taken place since are listed in the first part of the appendix to the Order on page 5.
As hon. Members will see, the major reason for the present increase Order is the teachers' pay increase negotiated in the summer, which accounts for increased expenditure of £27·3 million in this year, and £37·1 million in 1968 –69. These increases, together with awards to police, manual workers, firemen and others, form the bulk of the total expenditure increases taken into account for this Order which, adding in the range of smaller items, comes to £72·7 million this year and £91 million in 1968 –69, as the report very carefully enumerates.
Against these are to be set reductions in costs, the major one being variations in interest rates between the rates ruling last December and those ruling when the negotiations for the present Order were concluded during the first week or so of November this year. Again, at the bottom of the first part of the appendix on page 5 hon. Members will see details of what the reductions in costs were for this and for other items.
Also to be offset are increases in income, the largest of which is nearly £14 million for school means in 1968 –69, which results from the increase of 6d. per meal. This increase in the charge will be accompanied by the introduction of more generous remission scales. Free meals will be made available as of right to fourth and subsequent children. A


campaign is being undertaken with the object of encouraging as many as possible of all those eligible for free meals to make use of the service. I add these facts, because the £13·9 million estimated increase takes into account the probable effect of the factors I have just mentioned.
The net effect of all these variations is to produce an increase in estimated expenditure of £62·1 million for this year and of £66·9 million for 1968 –69.
After allowing for increases in specific grants due to pay and price changes, the increases proposed in the rate support grants, as the Report again indicates, are £29 million for the current year and £33 million for 1968 –69. These additional sums are divided by the Order between the resources element and the needs element. As the domestic element is the estimated cost of a 5d. or l0d. relief to domestic ratepayers, it is not subject to increases in prices, costs and remuneration, and so remains unchanged. The Order also makes necessary changes in the weightings for the needs element so as to distribute the additional grant. The factors are altered so that the proportions remain the same for the larger amount to be distributed. In other words, the £29 million and the £33 million for the two years will be distributed to local authorities by raising the amount payable per head of population, per child under 5, per child under 15, per person over 65, and per education unit. If anybody wants to know what an education unit is, it is all laid down in Regulations. If anybody wants the details, I have them here and can give them. However, hon. Members, who will be familiar with the subject, probably do not want me to make an even longer speech.
For both years, broad agreement has been reached with the local authority associations and the Greater London Council on the matters taken into account in the Order, and my right hon. Friend would like to thank them for the help they have given in reaching the settlements in the Order.

I commend the Order to the House.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: A rate support grant Order is a terrifying document to anybody who does not claim to be a human computer. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not make that claim, and I certainly do

not claim to be that sort of person. As hon. Members will see, the Order contains a schedule of figures and formulae, with phrases such as—
 As the sum by which the road-mileage of the roads in the area of the authority classified as principal roads under section 27 (hereinafter called ' the prescribed sum') is to be multiplied—
Then there is a complicated set of figures in two columns for one to try to work out.
Who would think that hidden amongst all these formulae and figures is a most important factor in the figure that we see on our rates demand note as it comes in perhaps twice a year, or four times a year, as the local authority thinks fit, of so many shillings in the £?
Fortunately we have had the explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, for which I am sure the House is very grateful, and we have before us the Report of the Minister, explaining why the increase is necessary, from which I understand the point simply to be that the Government tell the House: "A year ago we said that local authorities would have to spend £2,556 million this financial year. We now find that they will have to spend £2,619 million, which is £63 million more than we thought." That is for this year. For next year, they say, "We thought that they would have to spend only £2,726 million, and we now find that the figure will have to be £2,793 million, that is, £67 million more than we thought a year ago."
If the ordinary man in the street who pays his rates realises that fact, that something over £60 million a year more for this year and next year, in other words over £1 a head more, has to be found, he will not be very pleased with a Government who promised him at least some relief from the burden of rates.
A year ago, when we were discussing the rate support grant which the present Order is intended to amend, the hon. Gentleman the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary, replying to the debate, told us that we were in the middle of "a desperate economic crisis"—incidentally, this seems to be an annual event for this Government—and there would be no Santa Claus that year. He went on to say:
 …we have gone a very long way indeed on the road to curing the crisis. … This is not the record of a Government who have faltered or failed to stand up to the economic


crisis. It is the record of a Government who have tackled that crisis with determination ".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20 December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 1324.]
That determination has now taken us steadily downhill to devaluation and all that that will mean as a burden on the rates.
However, I ought not to blame devaluation for the increases which I have mentioned because the figures in this Order are calculated before taking devaluation into account. Still, without that increase in the cost of services to the local authorities, there will be about £2 or £3 increase per household now found by the Government to be necessary expenditure of the local authorities. By the Order the Exchequer will cushion that increase by contributing 54 per cent, this year and 55 per cent, next year. But even after contributions from the taxpayer of £29 million this year and £33 million next year, the ratepayer is still left to find more than £30 million for each of those years before any debit is made for increases caused by the devaluation and the higher interest rates which have occurred over the past few weeks.
In law, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Minister has to justify a Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order of this sort on the ground that there has been an unforeseen increase in the level of prices, costs or remuneration and that that unforeseen increase has had a substantial effect upon local authority expenditure.
The expression is "unforeseen increase". One might well say that this Order is entirely ultra vires because the increasing costs were not unforeseen at all. It was inevitable that the Government's policies would bring about increases in prices and costs. This has been as plain as a pikestaff throughout the past 12 months. If government is based on the philosophy of antagonism towards private enterprise and protagon-ism towards increased taxation, the levels of prices, costs and remuneration are bound to rise. This is not forecasting. It has been a proven fact in the past in connection with rates.
To meet the rise in costs in the past, since the first rates day after the Labour Government took office, rates have risen 2s. 6d. in the £. I am talking about the

average rate poundage, the figure in the £ that we see on our demand notes. Despite savage cuts in local authority expenditure for 1967–68, estimated at £160 million, rates have steadily increased over the years of office of the present Government.
The Government must now satisfy the House that there are unforeseen increases which will cost about £60 million to £70 million a year. They are set out in the Appendix to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The very first is teachers' salaries, which show an increase of £27·3 million for 1967 –68 and £37·1 million for 1968 –69. What has happened to the promise in the Labour Party manifesto in 1964 to transfer the larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer? The House and the public will want to know. That policy would have affected the Order by at least the increases of £27 million for this year and £37 million for next year. In fact, it would have affected it by almost the whole of the teachers' salary element in the rate burden. The House is entitled to a categorical answer from the hon. Gentleman on what has happened to that policy. Why have not teachers' salaries been transferred to the taxpayer, as was promised in the manifesto? If we do not have an answer we shall have to treat that as another of the Labour Party's pledges which had gone down the drain with the Government.
I have mentioned only teachers' salaries but Part II of the Appendix shows that the cost of education as a whole will increase by £36·3 million over the estimated figure for 1967 –68 and by £50·4 million over that for 1968 –69. When examining the figures in the Report we must remember that although it and the Order were laid before the House on 30th November, 12 days after devaluation, they take no account of the increases resulting from it. Yet those increases in costs and interest rates will have an effect for 4£ months of the first year to which the Order applies and for the whole of 1968 –69. To that extent the Report seems to be wholly misleading. Paragraph 4 says:
… the Minister is satisfied the unforeseen increases in costs since the 1966 Order was made are such as to warrant the making of an increase order in respect of both years of the grant period. Pay awards and other increases in cost are estimated to increase expenditure by …"—


and the figures are set out—
These increases are partly offset by reductions in costs (mainly the result of lower interest rates) amounting to "—
and again the figures are set out.
What will happen about the lower interest rates now with the policy which has resulted from devaluation. After devaluation on 18th November, the Minister should have taken the Order and the Report away, redrafted the Report and consulted the local authorities again. It will be no good, if the Parliamentary Secretary is so minded, for him to quote the Prime Minister's broadcast of 19th November in which the Prime Minister said that:
… the priority programmes of housing, school-building, and hospital-building will be safeguarded in all these measures. …
How can they be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Order now. It does not concern itself with housing subsidies. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the Order.

Mr. Page: I referred in full to the Prime Minister's statement, which included the word "housing", but I did so in full so that I should not be accused of misquoting. The quotation is that:
… housing, school-building, and hospital-building will be safeguarded in all these measures …
I was only intending to refer to school building because that comes within the terms of the Order.
If the local authorities are to build as many schools after devaluation as they had planned, before devaluation, to build, more money will be required. The builders have estimated that there will be an increase in building costs of about 4 to 5 per cent. Will that money be forthcoming? It is not in this Order. Nowhere do we find the increase referred to in the Order. If not, will the school building programme be cut to bring it within the figures put before us in the Order?
A similar question arises, although on a smaller scale perhaps, on all other local authority services covered by the rate support grant. The same money will produce less in future and that is not

taken into account in the Order. Like Alice, the councils will have to run faster to keep in the same place. They will have to have more money to build the same buildings and to carry out the same services.
Did the Prime Minister, when he gave that assurance to the public, really mean that the programmes would be safeguarded, or merely that the same nominal amount of money would be spent on those programmes? The Order does not answer that question. Indeed, it does not recognise it as of interest at all. The Order is just not related to the situation with which we are faced since 18th November, despite the fact that the Order was made on 27th November and laid before the House on 30th November.
Let us look at the interest rates. In the Appendix to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is a credit item for interest rates. How ludicrous it is to suggest that there can be savings of £½million on interest rates in 1967 –68 and £6½ million in 1968 –69 when interest rates are as they now are. I imagine that this credit item in the Appendix ought really to be a debit item of about the same amount. I am told that the increased loan charges for Birmingham alone are costing £100,000 a month since devaluation and the consequent increase in interest rates.
We have not had any explanation, either from the hon. Gentleman today or in answer to Questions which have been asked previously, as to how the present policy is going to affect local government expenditure. We have no explanation in the Order, which merely assumes that devaluation and the increases in interest rate have never happened. In the debate on 22nd November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer:
 The Prime Minister said that the priority programmes of housing, school building and hospital building would be safeguarded. As we understand that, as a result of devaluation, the cost of building will go up, will there be additional funds available on top of those already planned?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
 This problem will have to be looked at. I am not in a position to give an answer tonight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1439.]


On 28th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government,
 as a result of the economic measures announced on 18th November",
whether he had
 ordered the postponement of some local authority spending programmes; and what estimate he has made of the amounts involved in such postponements.
The Answer was:
 I am not yet ready to make a statement. But some reduction in local authority expenditure will be called for ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 50.]
Is the hon. Gentleman now able to tell us where these cuts will take place, because that is very relevant to the Order?
Let me be specific in my attack on the Order. I do not believe that the unforeseen increases as set out in the Appendix to the Report should form the foundation for this Order. First, both in 1967 –68, and in 1968 –69, the figures take no account of increases due to devaluation and higher interest rates, or, alternatively, they take no account of the threatened cuts in local authority expenditure. As far as the column relating to 1968 –69 is concerned, they take no account, or take insufficient account, of capital projects which have been deferred this year by the squeeze or wage rises which have been deferred this year by the freeze, both of which will become urgent during 1968 –69.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton): Would you tell the House how you arrive at the figure of 4 per cent.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the traditional form of address.

Mr. Heffer: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at the figure of 4 per cent, increase in building costs as a result of devaluation? As I understand it, having been in the building industry all my working life, the one thing which we import is timber. Apart from timber, what other products will we import for which we have no substitute in this country? I am naturally interested and concerned if the hon. Gentleman's figure is right. I do not see how he can arrive at it.

Mr. Page: Although I have not the paper before me now, I will give the hon.

Gentleman a complete breakdown of the materials used in the construction of a house which gives that figure. There are the metals used, both in paints as well as the separate metals, the timber, the alterations in taxation and in the financing of building, because local authorities have to finance it and to pay the extra cost of the money which they have to borrow to finance it. These figures give the percentage which I mentioned, and I have taken the precaution of acquiring from a builder—a reputable firm, I hope —a breakdown into 20 items in the construction of a house. I grant the hon. Gentleman that I was applying the figure to the construction of schools. There may be a distinction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing housing, which is excluded from the Order. No doubt he can bring himself quickly into order by using another allusion.

Mr. Page: I was using these figures for perhaps a different item of construction, but I believe they are just as valid in constructing schools.
I said that the column relating to increases unforeseen for the year 1968 –69 did not take into account the capital projects shelved during this year or the wage rises shelved during this year, both of which will become urgent next year. In particular, they do not take into account the fact that, owing to the economic pressure, many local authorities raided their reserves for this year, instead of increasing the rates, and that is something that cannot happen again.
For that reason the unforeseen in creases for 1968 –69, as given in the Appendix, are quite inadequate. Perhaps the Minister is hoping to counter act this by the proceeds of the betterment levy. Why is this not mentioned in the Report? We all remember the
noble Lord, the Minister without Port folio, in another place in November, 1966, telling the noble Members of that other place —

Mr. Skeffington: On a point of order. I do not know whether to curtail the discussion, as I find it extremely interesting, but I fail to see how the betterment levy can be discussed on this order. I am sure that there are other opportunities if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right in his submission. The betterment levy is not part of this increase and therefore not admissible for discussion.

Mr. Page: If I may pursue that point of order a little further. We are considering the amount to be provided for local authorities in order to account for an increase in their rates expenditure. In the appendix to this Report there are set out a number of items in which the Minister considers expenditure will increase and a number of items where there are offsets, reductions in cost, variations in interest rates and offsetting— increases in income, such as school meals, welfare accommodation, students' fees and "other income". I do not know what "other income" is but I was questioning whether that included something which we had previously been told would go to local authorities and would be income to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the Order is made under Section 3 which does not allow the hon. Gentleman to take into account the betterment levy. Therefore it cannot be included in the designation.

Mr. Page: I bow to your Ruling and pass on to sum up my arguments, I hope succinctly. I invite the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer these questions, with the leave of the House. First, are the present programmes on educational and welfare services of the local authorities to be maintained? If so, where and how is the increased cost to be found, because it is not in this Order. If not—and if this Order is confirmed— what services will be cut? His Minister has admitted that some services are to be cut and it is relevant to this Order to know what they are.
Secondly, by how much does he consider that the rates will rise next year? The difference between the figure of estimated expenditure upon which this year's rates were based, that is £2,557 million, and the revised figure for next year, £2,793 million, is £236 million. That is without taking devaluation into account. Does he anticipate that local authorities will seek to raise more or less than half that difference? To put it in simple language how much in the £, on average,

does he think that the rates will rise? My guess is, even taking into account the domestic element of l0d. in the £, that the average might well bump up by a greater amount than ever before, to something getting near to two bob in the £.
Thirdly, do the figures in this Order take account of the Government's recent policy that rates should pay for keeping local authority rents at uneconomic levels?
Fourthly, does the Order take into account—Mr. Speaker, I must pause there because I was about to ask a question which Mr. Deputy Speaker told me was not in order. I had it still on my notes; but I will not ask that question.
My final question is whether the teachers' salaries item in the Order means that the Government now completely abandon their election pledge to move the greater part of teachers' salaries from the ratepayer to the taxpayer.
Nobody expects to get out of the troubles, into which the Government have led the country, without painful financial operations, but what everybody expects is to be told, not only frankly but truthfully, the nature of the operations and where the knife is to be used. To have a diagnosis, such as that which is embodied in the Report and Order brought before the House at this moment, only confirms in our minds that there are some very incompetent surgeons in the Government's operating theatre.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The Order shows that Labour planning is a myth, because it takes no account whatever of either devaluation or the cost of increases in interest charges which have taken place recently. However, as one who represents an area with little industry, North-East Essex, I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth. The rate support grant certainly helps such areas, with their increasing costs, increasing staffs and the increasing burden of teachers' salaries. What a pity that there has not been proper planning and proper foresight and that the Government have not been able to keep costs under control so that we could debate items helping the productive resources of the country and not just putting straw into the holes caused by devaluation and increased costs due to inflation.
In my part of the world there are many vital capital projects, such as sewerage and so on, in a developing area which we would like to be developed but which are not being developed. All the Government are doing is trying to deal with inflation and not with the productive resources of the country. What a disappointment, too, that the Labour Government could not honour their pledge about teachers' salaries, because if they had —

Mr. Speaker: Like the hon. Member, I used to debate these issues when I was a free man, but he must get to the Order.

Mr. Ridsdale: The item for teachers' salaries is a substantial part of the Order in so far as the Order deals with a £27 million increase in teachers' salaries. I am saying that I had hoped that it would be possible to help councils more by taking the whole teachers' salaries off the rates and making them a national charge, when there would have been no need to have included £27 million in the Order for teachers' salaries.

Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but we cannot examine it on this Order.

Mr. Ridsdale: I come now to the domestic needs element of the Order. I refer to the rate relief grant going to areas such as those in my constituency. In Clacton, 18·7 per cent, have qualified for rate relief, almost as high as the figure in other urban and rural districts in the constituency, all of which have been hurt not only by devaluation, but by the rate relief legislation. The domestic element needs careful consideration. I think that I heard the Minister say that it was costing £13 million.
What has happened to the other £10 million? Is the other £10 million of the rate relief rebate to be used for rate support grant? I ask the Minister that question specifically because I have no doubt that, because of devaluation, alteration will have to be made in this rate relief grant. I hope it will be, because if it is not, then those who have been hardest hit by devaluation will suffer, particularly in areas such as there are in my constituency, where this domestic relief grant is helping a considerable number of people who definitely will be even further hit by devaluation. If the

Minister agrees, will he help those who need help most, and see that the rate support grant helps those areas such as North-East Essex which are without industry, and that something is done to protect those who need help most? Is it fair that the rate relief up to 25 per cent, should be found from other ratepayers who happen to find themselves so hard hit to pay rates in respect of rate support grant? Help must be given to those who need it in spite of the rate support grant. I do not believe this is happening at present.
What, however, concerns me much more in asking for more money is the growing bill for local government expenditure—it is needed, because the Government are coming to the House for rate support grant—and especially the educational bill, and the increasing costs which ratepayers are expected to pay. For the purpose of fixing the general rate support grant it is estimated that the education bill has increased between 1965 and 1966 through to 1968·69 by £312 million. The trend, indeed, seems to be even higher. Why have local government employees been allowed to increase by 160,000 since October, 1964? It is an astronomical increase. Is it not a wonder, with such an increase, that we have had devaluation, considering the extra cost of £200 million on local government employees?
I make this point because, in my view, although we are debating rate support grant, I believe that if the Government had been looking at the broader sphere, they would have realised that the only real way in which they can stop coming to the House continually for rate support grant is to tackle the problem of the reorganisation of local government and by tackling —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Order.

Mr. Ridsdale: Well, I end my intervention by saying that I hope that the Government will realise that the way they can best help the ratepayers is by reorganising local government, and hurrying up the report of the Royal Commission. If this is done then we shall be able to see further help is given to the ratepayers.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The Association of Municipal


Corporations tells me that it accepts this Order. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the negotiations were completed round about 1st November, and so I take it that the acceptance must be qualified by the fact that it is since 1st November.
I felt that there was a curiously unreal air about the way in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary put this Order ever. He seemed blissfully to have forgotten the events of 18th November. I do not doubt that he sincerely wishes he could forget them and that he wishes they had never happened. So does everyone in the country. Nevertheless, we have got to take account of what the effects will be.
So far we have had by this Order merely marginal increases, which are very necessary, and, therefore, to be welcomed. Nevertheless, when one considers next year, 1968 –69, can the change in the rate support grant be in any way relevant to what is required then? Obviously, there will have to be severe cuts in local government expenditure, and, therefore, we ought to look at the piosition last year when the Order was made which this one varies. At that time, the financial state of the country was described by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary as being one of crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) quoted his remarks on that occasion, and I will not repeat them.
It is very much worse now. How the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would describe it today, I do not know. I do not suppose that he wants to think about it. Obviously, the situation will be desperate next year, and making slight changes on the rate support grant made last year is quite inadequate.
My hon. Friend has mentioned already the two heads under which devaluation will hit local authorities hard. They are the increased cost of materials and increased loan charges. Loan charges are taken into account up to 1st November. On 18th November, Bank Rate went up to 8 per cent, and we have heard no hints of its coming down. Loan charges are at an all time high, and, although they do not affect local authority housing, it must be remembered that it is no good building houses unless one has schools and all the other ancillaries, all of which

will result in increased loan charges which are not taken into account.
The result must be a very considerable increase in local authority expenditure next year, however much authorities try to cut it, because the cuts already being made are not enough. Proposals for new swimming baths and sports centres have already been thrown out of the window, and it will be extremely difficult to find further cuts. Notwithstanding that, costs will go up next year.
All this seems a very far cry from election pledges about bringing early relief to ratepayers. Unless there is further aid from the Exchequer, there must be substantial increases on the rate burden. I suspect that the Government wish to transfer this burden to the local authorities. They take the view that someone has to pay and that, if the central Government do not, the local authorities will have to. In other words, it must be borne by the rates. I suspect that it is the intention of the Government to make local authorities unpopular by forcing them to increase their rates. Do not let us forget that when ratepayers complain next year that they are feeling the pinch either from an increase in rates or from the failure of local government services. When they feel that pinch, they must be reminded that the fault lies entirely with the Government.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I ask the leave of the House to speak again.
I was a little disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who knows a great deal about these matters, because a number of his points were rather more narrowly political. Certainly if I attempted to reply to them all I should be out of order. I cannot forecast what will happen about educational burdens— teachers' salaries—except to say this, the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) also raised a similar point.
What the Government have done generally concerning local government finance is to bring in what seemed a fairer and better system under Part I of the 1966 Act, because it has resulted in a higher contribution being made to local authority expenditure. It is 1 per cent, higher this year than under the old scheme.
The hon. Member has introduced other matters besides, which I should be out of order if I went into in detail, including rate rebate schemes.
When the report of the Royal Commission has been received and the Government have made up their mind on that recommendation and others, it will be possible to look at the relationship between central and local government finance including education. This is the order in which the problem has to be tackled. One cannot make piecemeal changes until one knows the structure and is able to devise the appropriate financial arrangement for it.
I will not forecast what the rate increases will or may be next year, as I am sure that no one would expect it of me.
The hon. Member for Crosby and several other hon. Members said that the Order does not take into account devaluation. This is true. The negotiations which had gone on so that the grant could become payable under the Order were completed in November. The hon. Gentleman knows about Part I of the Act, and he knows that, if the grim forebodings which he and other hon. Members have given vent to about devaluation take effect, this matter can be looked at again in a further Order. However, this is no excuse for not bringing forward the substantial relief for which this Order provides.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Government will bring before the House another Rates Support Grant Order for an increase before 1st April next?

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not answer that question, and he should not have put it. I have already given the background. I hope that the gloomy forecasts of the hon. Gentleman are not right, but the power is there. We are dealing with a situation which has been negotiated with, and accepted broadly by, the local authorities and which is of very considerable help.
I thought it unfair, even taking a party political point, to suggest, as the hon. Member for Crosby did, that the need for this increase is due to the malevolence

and incompetence of the Government's economic policies. The major reasons for the increases are in the report. The amount required for teachers this year is £27 million, and it is £37·1 million next year. That is an increase which I am sure we are all glad to see. Increases to the police, roadmen, firemen and others are also responsible for this sum. It is nothing whatever to do with any failure in policy. We were meeting payments which had long been negotiated, and I am sure they are welcomed by the House in general.
Interest rates are high at the moment, but they were high when negotiations for the Order started in December last year. It was because there was a favourable change for loans and interest rates generally that there is a saving, which is again referred to in the Report. Page 5 refers to reductions in costs. Variations in interest rates for this year are estimated at £8 million and at £5·9 million for next year. These have been taken into account. One hopes that the interest rates will not remain at their present level any more than they did in December last year.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about economies, and whether the amounts in the Order would be reduced. I give him the assurance that if the House approves the Order these amounts will not be subject to reduction. In the meantime the Government believe that responsible authorities everywhere will absorb any additional costs which may arise as a result of devaluation, and we shall certainly have consultations with them in due course about the problems which may be encountered in this way.
The hon. Member for Harwich asked a question which I am not certain that I understand, and therefore I am not certain that I can give the right answer. As I understood it, he asked whether there would be a variation in the domestic allowance. This is fixed. It is 5d. for the first year, l0d. for the second year, and so on, and we will see what amounts are involved. Rent rebate schemes are a matter for the future. We will see how the schemes are going, but I can hold out no chance at the moment of them being altered.
This has been a brief, but interesting, debate, and in reply to those hon. Members who have taken part I say that it


would be wrong to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Crosby that the Government are sitting idly by giving no help to the ratepayer. The contribution which the Government have made to the individual ratepayer has never been equalled by any other Government. We have a rate rebate scheme which is contributing substantial sums of money to nearly every authority, compared with what was a farce under the previous Administration. There is this domestic element which has enabled many authorities to keep their rate demands almost stable. They have claimed the credit for this, and given none of it to the Government, if they are authorities in the hands of our opponents. The Government have shown considerable care and concern, and are making available to local authorities a substantial contribution which we know they welcome. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that it can give the Order its approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1967, dated 27th November, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

SUMMER TIME

9.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time (No. 2) Order, 1967, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.
This Order has no effect in the United Kingdom, but provides that Summer Time in the Isle of Man in 1968 shall commence on 18th February, as in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands. Hon. Members will recall that on 21st July the attention of the House was drawn to the fact that the Summer Time Order, 1967, provided for Summer Time in 1968 to commence in the Isle of Man on 7th April, whereas it provided for Summer Time to commence in the United Kingdom and Channel Islands on 18th February. This provision was made at the request of the Isle of Man Govern-

ment, and although it appeared at first sight to be a little unusual, the view was taken that it was for the Government and people of the Isle of Man to judge what was in their own best interests.
The Isle of Man Government have now reversed their earlier decision and have asked for the Order to be amended to provide, as has always been the case in the past, that the date on which Summer Time commences in the Isle of Man next year should be the same as elsewhere in the British Isles. The purpose of the amending Order is solely to provide for the changed view of the Isle of Man Government on the date from which Summer Time should operate in the Island in 1968.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies (Sutton and Cheam): It must be for the convenience both of the people living in the Isle of Man and those who travel there that Summer Time in the Island should come into operation on the same date as it does here. None the less, the people of the Isle of Man showed their independence originally by asking that the date of alteration should be different. While I fully supported the independent line which they took in the circumstances which then existed, I am sure that this Order should be approved.
I understand that Summer Time in the Isle of Man will cease under the Order on 27th October, 1968, and I presume that that date, which is the same as here, was decided upon because, on 28th October, the British Standard Time which we shall be debating in respect of another Bill will come into operation. Therefore, I want assurances only that this Order does not affect the question of British Standard Time which we will debate later.

Mr. Ennals: I can give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time (No. 2) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

CIVIL DEFENCE

9.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
That the Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient if we took this Motion together with the next,
That the Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Warnings) (Revocation) Regulations 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

No objection taken. So be it.

Mr. Ennals: I agree that that would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
The substantial amendment is contained in Regulation 1(b) and I propose to deal with this first.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, made a statement to the House on 14th December last year about local authority civil defence, and he referred to the decision to reorganise the Civil Defence Corps. This reorganisation has been going forward during the past 12 months. The main task of the reorganised Corps in an emergency will be to help to man local authority controls, which are an integral part of the Government control system. The purpose of the control system, initially, is to direct lifesaving operations, and subsequently to provide a framework of civil administration to marshal and co-ordinate the use of available resources to the best advantage of the community.
Before the reorganisation, the Corps was divided into five specialist sections —headquarters, warden, rescue, welfare, ambulance and first-aid—and each section had its own training. In the reorganised Corps, with the emphasis on control and co-ordination, specialist sections have been abolished.
Much of the training is now common to all members, but those who have completed the recruit stage of training will be concerned with two or more specialised activities so as to provide for flexibility in their use in an emergency, whether they are on either the active or the reserve strength. These changes in

training arrangements raise problems about claims by local authorities for grant on training expenditure.
Under the Grant Regulations of 1953, relating to England and Wales, expenditure on training is completely reimbursed for those civil defence preparations mentioned in the Schedule to these Regulations. All other training expenditure— and this is the greater part—is grant-aided at the rate of 75 per cent.
To take one example of the activities mentioned in the Schedule, expenses on training in connection with the preparations for billeting, care of the homeless and emergency feeding is completely reimbursed; this training has been undertaken hitherto by the Welfare Section of the Corps, and local authorities had no difficulty in identifying and isolating this expenditure for the purpose of their claims.
The new training arrangements and the abolition of sections, however, make it impracticable for local authorities to isolate expenditure on the training of the individual member for particular activities. We have therefore decided, in consultation with the local authority associations, that all expenditure incurred in training members of the Corps should be treated alike for grant purposes and grant-aided at the rate of 75 per cent.
Regulation 1(b) of the draft Regulations makes provision for this. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the 1953 Regulations prescribes certain expenses that will not qualify for complete reimbursement, but for grant of 75 per cent. Regulation 1(b) of the draft Regulations adds expenses for training members of the Corps to paragraph 6 of the Schedule.
Regulation 1(a) is a drafting Amendment. Under the Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Warnings) Regulations 1951, which it is proposed to revoke, certain local and police authorities were responsible for making provision for warning the public by sirens of hostile attack. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 1953 Grant Regulations enabled the responsible authorities to claim 100 per cent, grant on expenses incurred on renting equipment for the remote control of sirens for air raid warning purposes; and other expenses incurred on the warning system were eligible for grant at the rate of 75 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has assumed full responsibility in England and Wales for the provision of a public warning system under Section 1 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948. Police authorities still carry out certain functions, but on an agency basis, and all expenditure is met from the Exchequer. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 1953 Regulations is, therefore, no longer of any application. The purpose of the second set of Regulations is to revoke the Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Warnings) Regulations, 1951. The 1951 Regulations conferred on police authorities in London and on certain local authorities elsewhere in England and Wales, principally county councils and county borough councils, functions in connection with local arrangements for the provision of a system of warning the public by siren of hostile attack and for operating that system in the event of war.
The warning system contemplated by the 1951 Regulations was virtually a continuation of the system used in the second world war, which had been a local authority function. Since the time when the 1951 Regulations were drafted, both the threat of attack and the nature of the dangers has changed. The responsibility for warning the public of the threat of air and missile attack or the approach of radioactive fall-out is now among the: principal tasks of the warning system, for which the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation is responsible.
Technical advances in the system of relaying messages have enabled an attack warning to be distributed from one centre to the whole country within a matter of half a minute. We have recognised that, with the development of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, the exercise of local authority discretion in the provision of a warning system is no longer appropriate. Accordingly, the responsibility for providing a public warning system in England and Wales has been assumed by my right hon Friend the Home Secretary under Section 1 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948.
These Regulations revoke the functions previously conferred on police and local authorities which are no longer applicable, though the police authorities continue to carry out certain functions for

the testing, care and maintenance of sirens and their control equipment on an agency basis. Expenditure incurred by the police authorities on an agency basis is fully reimbursed.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies (Sutton and Cheam): Not much need be said about the second set of Regulations. They are sensible and take account of technical progress which has been made, and I commend them to the House.
I cannot, however, say the same about the first set of Regulations. My understanding is that the main purpose of them is to increase by 25 per cent, the charge which local authorities will have to bear for the training of local authority officers in certain aspects of civil defence. When this matter was last debated—on 20th July, 1967—it was made clear that, in future, the main purpose of Government policy arising out of the statement of 14th December, 1966, was that, in future, the employees of local authorities would be asked to play a bigger part in helping local authorities to carry out their civil defence functions. It was made quite clear in the debate at that time by the then Minister of State at the Home Office that in carrying out their functions under the Regulations local authorities were required to comply with any direction given by the Home Secretary. In carrying out those functions of training no discretion is left to the local authorities. They are simply the agents of the Government.

It being Ten o'clock Mr. Speaker interrupted the Business.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Standing Order No. 65 (Chairmen of Standing Committees) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Sharpies: I was referring to the role of local authorities in carrying out the instructions of the Home Office for training. The then Minister of State went on to say that if the Regulations we discussed on 20th July, 1967, were approved her right hon. Friend would issue directions in the form of a circular to local authorities about the training of staff


My understanding was that those instructions are obligatory on the local authorities concerned. The Minister of State also said that the local authority associations and the National and Local Government Officers Association had been consulted on the draft preparations. She went on to say that they were content with the arrangements which had been made.
The questions which I think the House would like the Under-Secretary to answer are threefold. Were consultations initiated with local authorities and with the National and Local Government Officers Association about this increase in costs now to be put on local authorities? If consultations were held, what were the reactions of the bodies then consulted? What is to be the additional cost which local authorities will have to bear? I have no doubt that we shall be told that the cost is comparatively small, but this evening we have debated other Orders which place additional burdens on the ratepayers. We are reaching a stage where every additional straw placed upon the burden borne by the ratepayer will rapidly make that burden wholly intolerable. I hope that we shall have specific answers from the Under-Secretary to the questions I have asked.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: With permission I speak again in order to deal with the principal question about finance and to answer other questions. It is not possible to assess with accuracy the additional expenditure to be borne on the rates as a result of the change in grant from 100 per cent, to 75 per cent. A large part of the welfare training will be undertaken by people not enrolled in the Corps and expenditure on non-Corps welfare training will continue to be completely reimbursed.

Mr. Sharpies: I said in so far as the functions under the Order had increased the cost by 25 per cent.

Mr. Ennals: To that extent the hon. Member is right but, as concerns additional expenditure, the increase will be very little. The hon. Member has to take into consideration that, in consequence of the decision announced by the Home Secretary on 14th December, local authority expenditure on civil defence

has been cut from £8 million in 1965 –66 to an estimated £6·3 million in 1967 –68. This represents an overall saving on training of £1·7 million of which about £0·4 million is expenditure which would have been wholly reimbursed.
The saving in expenditure, which is grant aided at the rate of 75 per cent., is therefore of the order of £1·3 million. This represents a saving in rate-borne expenditure of about £0·3 million. There will also be some saving for local authorities in administrative costs as a result of the simplified arrangements for claiming grant at one rate only.
There has not been much change in training responsibility. The Home Office is already responsible for general training policy, the co-ordination of training arrangements, and the central training establishments. Moreover, training in control duties, which will from now on be a major part of corps training, is in any case a Home Office function. There has already been consultation before the Order was laid before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Warnings) (Revocation) Regulations 1967, [draft laid before the House, 28th November] approved.—[Mr. Ennals.]

RAW COTTON COMMISSION (CANCELLATION OF LIABILITIES)

10.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move,
That the Raw Cotton Commission (Cancellation of Liabilities) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.
Hon. Members are no doubt aware, and I personally vividly remember, that the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947, established a Commission for the centralised buying, selling and distribution of raw cotton. The Act transferred to the Commission all property rights and liabilities in raw cotton and other contracts relating to trading in and dealing


with raw cotton vested in the Board of Trade immediately before the establishment of the Commission. That was during the period of wartime cotton control. The Act also made provision for periodical advances to be made by the Board to the Commission for the purpose of meeting outgoings chargeable to the Commission's revenue and capital accounts.
In 1954, the Cotton Act modified, if that is the right phrase, the functions of the Commission, principally by withdrawing its monopoly status, and provided for its dissolution if at any time the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials were satisfied that it would be in the public interest to do so.
In exercise of this power, the Raw Cotton Commission (Dissolution) Order, 1954, was made out for approval by Parliament, and on 1st September, 1954, the Commission went into liquidation. A liquidator was appointed by the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials, whose existence, oddly enough, I had forgotten, and he was empowered to exercise the remaining functions of the Commission during the winding up period.
The liquidator took over a net deficit of £7,035,502. The losses incurred by the Raw Cotton Commission were discussed exhaustively in the House during the debate on the Cotton Bill, 1954. During the winding-up period a further deficit of £1,233,094 was incurred. The major part of this additional deficit is attributable to the development premiums, amounting to £808,029, paid on Nigerian cotton imported during 1955 and 1956 as part of the negotiated cancellation of the agreement with the Nigerian Produce Marketing Company Ltd.
The liquidation has been delayed since that time by certain outstanding claims, but these have recently been settled. All assets have been realised and no further income can be expected to reduce the outstanding liabilities to the Board of Trade.
It is, therefore, now possible to proceed with the formalities required to complete the liquidation of the Commission, including the presentation of the liquidator's final account which, under Article 13(2) of the Dissolution Order, must be laid before Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade. Before this can

be done, the outstanding liabilities to the Board of Trade must be cancelled. Section 4(6) of the 1954 Act provides for the cancellation by Order, with the consent of the Treasury, of liabilities in respect of both initial and periodical advances. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that power conferred by the Act to make Orders shall be exercisable by Statutory Instrument and shall be invoked only if a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House. The draft has been so laid, and I now ask for the approval of the House.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: There is, as the Minister of State suggested, a certain nostalgia about this subject. We well remember the debates from 1952 to 1954 about the Raw Cotton Commission and the duel between Lord Thorneycroft and the present Prime Minister on this subject. We remember further, the grave warning issued by the present Prime Minister that raw cotton would somehow be less available and less cheap to the industry than it was in those days—fears which have not proved correct, until, perhaps, today. I do not wish to rub salt into the wound. Here we have a deficit on State trading of £8 million. All I ask is that the Minister of State shall confirm that this is the end of the affair.
According to the Cotton Act, 1954, on the winding up of the Commission, initial advances made by the Board of Trade from the institution of the Raw Cotton Commission in 1947 must be repaid, either plus or minus, and also periodical advances made thereafter. What were the initial advances in 1947? We wish to know that so that we may judge the extent of the loss in State trading over the years. Second, so that we may further judge the losses to the taxpayer in State trading then, what were the periodical advances thereafter, if any, made by the Board of Trade?
Are there any other losses? As I understand it, it is only with initial advances and periodical advances that we are dealing tonight, but, under Section 4 of the Cotton Act, 1954, any other losses which are not accounted for by those two categories are automatically borne by the Treasury and are not to be brought before Parliament.
May we take it that the sum in the Order of about £8,200,000 is, as it were, the full amount of the loss to the taxpayer, or are there other losses which the Treasury has borne? I have already asked about initial advances put into the Raw Cotton Commission on its institution and about periodical advances thereafter.
It was, perhaps, a necessary feature of the immediate postwar world that we should have a Government monopoly in this sort of trading, but experience from 1954 onwards has shown the wisdom of the then Government in winding up this particularly expensive form of trading. Private industry and the Liverpool Cotton Exchange have managed very well up to the present to provide the cotton industry with its raw material. It has taken the risk at no cost to the taxpayer, and it is only in the past few weeks that, as a result of devaluation, there has been any problem in the raw cotton market between that date and now.
Finally, why has it taken such an interminable time to wind the Commission up? I understand about the Nigerian problem, but that was only two years after 1954; the limit of that problem was the year 1957. Why has it taken another 10 years since then to present this account to the House and the public? It is a most extraordinary state of affairs, and requires an explanation.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: May I speak again by leave of the House?
I agree that it is an interminable time? Unfortunately, the liquidator became involved in a series of legal processes, not with Nigeria, but with two Persian merchants, for a sum of about £200,000, and it is only recently that that question has been settled. It was the last matter to settle; this is the final curtain. There are no other liabilities. The total advances made when the Commission first started were about £86 million. They

have been steadily paid off until we see the present figure of just over £8 million. About £200,000 of that is attributable to periodical revenue advances.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: Could my hon. Friend tell us the Commission's turnover during the six or seven years of its operation, so that we can get the losses into perspective in relation to the transactions during the time it operated?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not have the exact figure, but the turnover was well over £800 million, so that these losses are small when considered as a percentage of that. They have not been considerable in view of the difficulties. Part of the time for which the Commission was responsible was very difficult with the Korean war, the limitation on exports of American cotton, and the shortage of dollars.
Although the Commission has not operated for many years, it will not have escaped hon. Members' notice that the difficulties of supplying raw cotton to this great industry are still pretty serious. In the present situation of the industry I do not wish to make any party points. The industry must have its supply of raw cotton. I do not think that the Commission, as we set it up all those years ago, was entirely right; in some ways it was too inflexible. But equally I cannot believe that the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, as reopened 13 years ago, has entirely satisfied the industry's needs. I wish that it were possible, given that the industry is going through such a difficult time, that we could again consider methods of ensuring the supply of raw cotton to Lancashire at a reasonably steady price. I do not think that either side has yet got the solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Raw Cotton Commission (Cancellation of Liabilities) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.

STANDING ORDER No. 65 (CHAIRMEN OF STANDING COMMITTEES)

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 65 (Chairmen of Standing Committees) be amended as follows: —

Line 1, after "chairman", insert "or chairmen".

Line 10, leave out "chairman" and insert "chairmen".

Line 11, at end insert—

(3) When more than one Chairman is appointed to a Standing Committee pursuant to paragraph (1) of this order, any of the Chairmen so appointed may exercise the powers conferred by paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 59 (Standing Committees (Constitution and powers)).—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

SOUTH EASTERN ELECTRICITY BOARD (INSTALLATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Armstrong.]

10.20 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: My object in seeking this debate is to secure greater safety for people in their homes. Electricity great modern boon not only in the public services and industry, but also in people's homes. But it has to be securely harnessed. Otherwise, it can bring death by fire and by shock and much destruction by fire.
The nationalised electricity boards have a great responsibility to the public for the safety in the use of this powerful modern force. For they fix and maintain their own installations in private premises throughout the country. In exercising these responsibilities for safety, they have somewhat out of date regulations to guide them. But the Minister has an overriding general responsibility to Parliament. So, tonight, I shall try to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to take direct action to deal with a truly scandalous record of bad work by the South Eastern Electricity Board in parts of my constituency.
This bad work goes beyond my constituency in to Guildford. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for

Guildford (Mr. David Howell) is unable, because of sickness, to be in this place or join in this debate, but we have been in close consultation. I am glad, however, that, to mark our party's concern over this matter, we have the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is our Front Bench spokesman on this subject, and is keeping a watching brief.
I base my case on a report sent to me by the Minister. It was made by one of his own inspectors. The report has been supplemented by close consultations over the last two months with one of my constituents, an experienced electrical engineer who is consultant also to the Guildford Rural District Council. It was he who brought these matters into the light and it was he who accompanied the inspector during his sample investigations. I shall quote only three of the passages from the report, for much of it has already appeared in the national Press. It says:
Four of the installations I saw were, in my opinion, an open, obvious and constant source of danger. These were at Inspections 12 and 21 where the risk was one of fire, Inspection 27 where the risk was one of electric shock and Inspection 31, where the risk was of fire and electric shock. In all these cases the faults were clearly apparent, and in my view, should have been seen and reported to the Board by the Meter Readers who, the Board say, are instructed to report ' irregularities'. It is this lack of action on clearly obvious and very dangerous conditions which is in my view the most serious finding arising from the inspection.
Again:
 in many cases this equipment is fitted at floor level where the danger to children is obvious.
One final quotation:
 In summarising it does appear to me that a significant proportion of the Board's equipment in the two districts concerned might be below a standard consistent with a reasonable degree of safety and of a current carrying capacity below that demanded by the normal domestic electrical load.
I am sure that the House will agree that this discloses a quite shocking record of slack work and of slack supervision by the South Eastern Electricity Board and, in particular, by this Surrey sub-area and the two subordinate districts of Dorking and Guildford. But this report, with two exceptions, covered a random sample on a fairly narrow base. The true situation throughout this sub-area


and elsewhere under this board may be better. It may also be worse. It presents, anyway, a vivid picture of widespread danger, and the public will look to the Minister to see that those responsible are brought to book.
How were these failures revealed? Not by the vigilance which the South Eastern Electricity Board has a duty to the public to exercise. And yet this nationalised industry, with its monopoly of supply, has a special duty in handling such a powerful force in people's homes to make safety a top priority. It clearly has failed to do so in this area.
This situation was exposed by one of my constituents, Mr. D. C. Smith, of whom I have already spoken. For two years he has been reporting to the Board dangerous installations in this area. In spite of these reports, the Board did not take the initiative in making a general review of the standard of work in its area. It simply made good some of the failures which he pointed out, some of them after many months.
In the end, Mr. Smith was driven in May of this year to complain direct to the Minister. His complaint as summarised by the Ministry was:
 First, the Board were unco-operative over any complaint made. Secondly, the Board were unwilling to take any steps to remove any possible dangers at meter positions or dangers due to earthing which past experience indicated were likely to exist throughout the network.
Here, I should like to pay tribute to the thoroughness and persistence with which my constituent sought to improve the safety of installations in this area. I am sure that the people of my constituency owe him a debt of gratitude for exposing these dangers. I hope that the Minister, too, will feel that Mr. Smith has rendered a valuable public service in giving the Ministry the opportunity to deal with the situation promptly.
The Minister initiated action promptly. When he received Mr. Smith's report, he arranged for his inspector accompanied by my constituent to carry out a sample inspection of the South Eastern Electricity Board's work in the consumers' premises in this area, and when I asked for a copy of this report, the Minister without delay sent me one, and I thank

him. I hope that he will be as prompt in his follow-up action.
The first action which I should like him to take in view of the scandalously dangerous situation revealed is the setting up of a public inquiry. No less is due to the people of my constituency and the others who may be affected in neighbouring areas. Secondly, I believe that the Minister should carry out a review by independent consultants into the standards and safety achieved by other boards for which he is, in general, answerable to Parliament. Those are my two main requests and I hope that in reply the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure the public by agreeing to take action on those lines.
I should like to make some other suggestions. My third is that there should be a systematic check by a Ministry inspector and an experienced, independent, consultant on every meter position in the Dorking and Guildford South Eastern Area Board's district and all faults and slovenly work revealed by them should immediately be put right by the South Eastern Electricity Board.
Fourthly, and I do not want to spread alarm, but I suggest that whenever there is a fatal accident, with possible electrical involvement, the coroner should be encouraged to call for an independent electrical engineer, as well as an area Board official, as expert witnesses.
Fifthly, the Minister should set up a working party to bring up to date the Electricity Supply Regulations 1937, and to tighten them up in the interests of safety. At the same time, he might seek to give legal status to the regulations of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which I have here, and to the British Standards Specifications, to prevent the manufacture and import of dangerous and potentially dangerous equipment. Lastly I am advised that there is an urgent need to correlate all existing information regarding earthing. Perhaps the Minister should consider giving the task to some appropriate body and following it up with additional research, if that was found to be necessary.
To sum up, thanks to my constituent's patient and experienced investigations, his determination in the face of discouragement and rebuffs from the South Eastern Electricity Board, thanks to the support given to him by the Shere Parish


Council, thanks to the splendid work of the local and national Press and radio, and because of prompt action by the Minister, widespread public danger has been exposed. An opportunity has been given to the Minister to take prompt action to deal with those dangers, and publicly and vigorously, to investigate the work of the South Eastern Electricity Board in peoples' homes, to reassure the public about the standard of safety that they have a right to expect from this and other electricity boards. Let us hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate tonight what he has in mind.

10.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) was kind enough to inform my Department of the main points which he intended to raise, so that I have been able to prepare some notes. He will appreciate that I have not had notice of some of the points raised by him tonight. Since I do not have a lot of time, may I say that if I am unable to get through it all in the time available I will be only too glad to handle subsequent queries by correspondence and consultation.
I should begin by saying that while the hon. Gentleman said at one stage in his speech that he did not wish to spread alarm, I suspect that some of the adjectives that he used, when they appear in print, will do it just a little. I am not here to speak complacently about this, nor to defend wrong actions or a failure by anyone in this matter. I hope, however, that we can keep this subject in perspective. Wild and vivid adjectives do not always help in this kind of situation.
Tonight, we are considering the Board's equipment inside premises—the equipment known as service terminals or terminations. In the South Eastern Board's area alone there are 1,500,000, the date of installation ranging from about 50 years ago to the present time. It would be foolish of me to deny that there are some deficiencies at these terminations. In the conditions in which the Board operates, and bearing in mind that others have access to these pieces of equipment it would be surprising if there were no deficiencies.
But the overall record of safety and quality cannot be disputed. The Board's records for the past 10 years show that there has not been a single electrical accident in the whole of the Board's area which can be attributed to defective terminal equipment. Technically, it would be possible to ensure a higher standard than at present. But the extra cost and the qualified staff required to mount a programme to deal completely with this would be prohibitive. That is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting at one point in his speech. The Board says that it would cost approximately £600,000 to check all its consumers, quite apart from the cost of rectifying any fault discovered.
Even if it covered only older premises the cost would still be formidable, and might be difficult to justify at a time when expenditure is having to be restrained, considering that there has been no fatal accident, so far as the records show, attributable to the Board's equipment on consumers' premises, and that the accident rate, mostly of minor injuries, is so low. The Board has undertaken a realistic and regular programme of replacement of obsolete apparatus. When the Board is advised of additions or alterations to the consumer's installation, or an irregular situation is reported by the Board's staff, it is the rule of the Board to institute replacements where necessary. It is fair to say that the volume of replacement in such circumstances is modest, and much remains to be done.
I turn now to the inspector's report, which is the subject of the debate. A number of the cases refer to failure to earth cut-outs and meters. A majority of the installations inspected were carried out before nationalisation, when it was the usual practice for many undertakings not to earth cut-outs and it is not considered justifiable at this stage to ask the Board to earth these old pieces of equipment, which are being gradually replaced and have not been a cause of accidents. The Board's employees have strict instructions to seal insecure and unsealed apparatus, but, as the inspector indicated in his report, seals can be removed by others later.
Of the 47 installations inspected and reported on in the report, 25 are judged by the inspector to be quite satisfactory, 18 were not in accordance with the best


modern practice, and a number had minor deficiencies, but none of these could be said to be dangerous.

Sir G. Sinclair: May I ask the Minister whether he is quoting from the same report I quoted? I am basing myself on the inspector's report.

Mr. Freeson: I hope that the hon. Member will be patient. I shall come to the particular point which is at issue, so far as the Board is concerned. I am referring entirely to the report in these remarks.
I was going on to say that this leaves four cases out of the 47 which the inspector considered to be dangerous. In one of the four cases the conditions found were not due to work done by the Board, but to unauthorised work or tampering, for which the Board was not in any way responsible. This kind of interference, including the work of the handyman, is something which there is no means of stopping. People should be warned about this, apart from the debate tonight. In another of these cases the condition found by the inspector was not present when inspected by the Board's installation inspector in April this year. The investigation has shown that much of the trouble is due to work done on the consumer's side of the meter without the Board's knowledge, and that the Board must rely on its own employees who visit premises to report back any irregularities.
It is necessary to keep these matters in perspective. I have already mentioned that there has not been a single accident reported in the whole of the South Eastern Board's area for the past 10 years attributable to the Board's equipment in premises. Over the country as a whole since we began keeping figures in their present form about four years ago, there has been no fatal accident attributable to the Board's equipment, and injuries reported, almost invariably very slight, are less than 1 per 1 million consumers a year. Even if we take fatal accidents in the home from all electrical causes—which goes well beyond the Boards' equipment—from all electrical causes including all consumers' wiring and equipment, the proportion is only 1 per cent, of all fatal accidents in the home.
I think that we must keep this matter in perspective. This happens to be one of the safest service industries we have in this country in relation to homes and industry. Reference was made to the tightening up of the regulations, and it was suggested they are out of date. We do not accept this. We believe that they are basically sound and cover a very wide field. The Minister does not consider that any review of the regulations would contribute to safety. The suggestion about making the I.E.E. regulations statutory has been considered and rejected many times in the past, because enforcement of them would require a whole army of inspectors with the right to go into private houses. This would be objectionable to householders in many cases, very costly, and qualified technical manpower is already scarce. That is not to say that there are no improvements in procedure for dealing with old houses, but for me to pursue any thoughts along those lines would take me beyond the scope of this debate.
The Electricity Boards test and inspect all new installations in accordance with a procedure which in some respects goes further than the requirements of regulation 26 of the Electricity Supply Regulations. They also advise individual consumers about earthing regulations, and test and inspect installations on request. Some boards rewire houses on credit terms.
In practice, there is no need for the regulations to be made mandatory. As it is, a high proportion of all installation work is now carried out by contractors, including the boards, who are registered with the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting, which is backed by the Government and the industry. The essence of qualification for registration is that all work must be done in accordance with the I.E.E. regulations, and sample checking is carried out by the council.
The number of fatal accidents in the home due to the fixed wiring is less than 1 per 1 million consumers per year, and it is not increasing, despite the dramatic increase in the use of electricity over the years. The Minister is not persuaded that further statutory regulation is needed or would materially improve the already high standards of safety.
A public inquiry has been asked for, but, again, the Minister does not consider this to be an appropriate way of handling either the situation which has been referred to or the general points referred to by the hon. Gentleman on a nation wide basis. The electricity industry enjoys a very high record of safety, and it would be quite wrong to spread unnecessary alarm or suggest that there is any general or serious problem. The industry is very safety conscious, and a great deal of work is going on all the time to improve on the high standards already achieved.
I want to end by referring to particular points which we are pursuing. They have been touched upon by the hon. Gentleman. I want to emphasise that, despite the fact that I have made these observations and set out the facts as we see them, we are in no way complacent.
Following the report, the Board is to carry out further checks on samples of consumers in other parts of its area, and we are arranging for the Ministry's inspectorate to be closely associated with this work. The Board proposes to consider how the method of reporting back by meter readers making regular visits to consumers' premises can be improved. they can report back on any faults they discover, and their regular visits will improve the oversight of work which needs to be done. The Ministry will discuss further with the Board what may be done to remedy the position following the wider check.
Those seem to us to be the practical ways of tackling the problem. As regards the rest of the country, we propose to tike the matter up with the Electricity

Council in the light of the points which have been made by the hon. Gentleman and those I have made in reply. If necessary, we will also consider approaching the consultative councils to consider to what extent, if at all, there have been complaints or queries of this kind in other parts of the country which need looking at, where handling methods might need improvement.
In my last remarks, I want to refer to some of the general observations which the hon. Gentleman made about how the matter was brought to light. I do not deny that there may be some fault here, and I have indicated it during my remarks. However, it is my impression, having discussed the matter at some length inside the Department, that the blame for the handling of it does not rest all on one side. There have been some unfortunate personal relations, some unfortunate methods of speaking with and contacting people, and efforts to get things moving which it would not be of any benefit, in this situation, for me to pursue in detail.
Concerning the earlier part of the history, there are faults on both sides. What the Ministry, the Board, the industry and the hon. Member are concerned about is: what do we do about the situation now? I hope that the lines of action I have indicated, against the background that I have described, will meet with the hon. Members support, so that we can get on with the job and make sure that matters are dealt with satisfactorily in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.